## Summary <!-- Kurz: Was ändert sich und warum? --> ## Spec-Driven Development (SDD) - [ ] Es gibt eine Spec unter `specs/<NNN>-<feature>/` - [ ] Enthaltene Dateien: `plan.md`, `tasks.md`, `spec.md` - [ ] Spec beschreibt Verhalten/Acceptance Criteria (nicht nur Implementation) - [ ] Wenn sich Anforderungen während der Umsetzung geändert haben: Spec/Plan/Tasks wurden aktualisiert ## Implementation - [ ] Implementierung entspricht der Spec - [ ] Edge cases / Fehlerfälle berücksichtigt - [ ] Keine unbeabsichtigten Änderungen außerhalb des Scopes ## Tests - [ ] Tests ergänzt/aktualisiert (Pest/PHPUnit) - [ ] Relevante Tests lokal ausgeführt (`./vendor/bin/sail artisan test` oder `php artisan test`) ## Migration / Config / Ops (falls relevant) - [ ] Migration(en) enthalten und getestet - [ ] Rollback bedacht (rückwärts kompatibel, sichere Migration) - [ ] Neue Env Vars dokumentiert (`.env.example` / Doku) - [ ] Queue/cron/storage Auswirkungen geprüft ## UI (Filament/Livewire) (falls relevant) - [ ] UI-Flows geprüft - [ ] Screenshots/Notizen hinzugefügt ## Notes <!-- Links, Screenshots, Follow-ups, offene Punkte --> Co-authored-by: Ahmed Darrazi <ahmeddarrazi@MacBookPro.fritz.box> Reviewed-on: #80
5.8 KiB
Feature Specification: [FEATURE NAME]
Feature Branch: [###-feature-name]
Created: [DATE]
Status: Draft
Input: User description: "$ARGUMENTS"
User Scenarios & Testing (mandatory)
User Story 1 - [Brief Title] (Priority: P1)
[Describe this user journey in plain language]
Why this priority: [Explain the value and why it has this priority level]
Independent Test: [Describe how this can be tested independently - e.g., "Can be fully tested by [specific action] and delivers [specific value]"]
Acceptance Scenarios:
- Given [initial state], When [action], Then [expected outcome]
- Given [initial state], When [action], Then [expected outcome]
User Story 2 - [Brief Title] (Priority: P2)
[Describe this user journey in plain language]
Why this priority: [Explain the value and why it has this priority level]
Independent Test: [Describe how this can be tested independently]
Acceptance Scenarios:
- Given [initial state], When [action], Then [expected outcome]
User Story 3 - [Brief Title] (Priority: P3)
[Describe this user journey in plain language]
Why this priority: [Explain the value and why it has this priority level]
Independent Test: [Describe how this can be tested independently]
Acceptance Scenarios:
- Given [initial state], When [action], Then [expected outcome]
[Add more user stories as needed, each with an assigned priority]
Edge Cases
- What happens when [boundary condition]?
- How does system handle [error scenario]?
Requirements (mandatory)
Constitution alignment (required): If this feature introduces any Microsoft Graph calls, any write/change behavior,
or any long-running/queued/scheduled work, the spec MUST describe contract registry updates, safety gates
(preview/confirmation/audit), tenant isolation, run observability (OperationRun type/identity/visibility), and tests.
If security-relevant DB-only actions intentionally skip OperationRun, the spec MUST describe AuditLog entries.
Constitution alignment (RBAC-UX): If this feature introduces or changes authorization behavior, the spec MUST:
- state which authorization plane(s) are involved (tenant
/admin/t/{tenant}vs platform/system), - ensure any cross-plane access is deny-as-not-found (404),
- explicitly define 404 vs 403 semantics:
- non-member / not entitled to tenant scope → 404 (deny-as-not-found)
- member but missing capability → 403
- describe how authorization is enforced server-side (Gates/Policies) for every mutation/operation-start/credential change,
- reference the canonical capability registry (no raw capability strings; no role-string checks in feature code),
- ensure global search is tenant-scoped and non-member-safe (no hints; inaccessible results treated as 404 semantics),
- ensure destructive-like actions require confirmation (
->requiresConfirmation()), - include at least one positive and one negative authorization test, and note any RBAC regression tests added/updated.
Constitution alignment (OPS-EX-AUTH-001): OIDC/SAML login handshakes may perform synchronous outbound HTTP (e.g., token exchange)
on /auth/* endpoints without an OperationRun. This MUST NOT be used for Monitoring/Operations pages.
Constitution alignment (BADGE-001): If this feature changes status-like badges (status/outcome/severity/risk/availability/boolean), the spec MUST describe how badge semantics stay centralized (no ad-hoc mappings) and which tests cover any new/changed values.
Functional Requirements
- FR-001: System MUST [specific capability, e.g., "allow users to create accounts"]
- FR-002: System MUST [specific capability, e.g., "validate email addresses"]
- FR-003: Users MUST be able to [key interaction, e.g., "reset their password"]
- FR-004: System MUST [data requirement, e.g., "persist user preferences"]
- FR-005: System MUST [behavior, e.g., "log all security events"]
Example of marking unclear requirements:
- FR-006: System MUST authenticate users via [NEEDS CLARIFICATION: auth method not specified - email/password, SSO, OAuth?]
- FR-007: System MUST retain user data for [NEEDS CLARIFICATION: retention period not specified]
Key Entities (include if feature involves data)
- [Entity 1]: [What it represents, key attributes without implementation]
- [Entity 2]: [What it represents, relationships to other entities]
Success Criteria (mandatory)
Measurable Outcomes
- SC-001: [Measurable metric, e.g., "Users can complete account creation in under 2 minutes"]
- SC-002: [Measurable metric, e.g., "System handles 1000 concurrent users without degradation"]
- SC-003: [User satisfaction metric, e.g., "90% of users successfully complete primary task on first attempt"]
- SC-004: [Business metric, e.g., "Reduce support tickets related to [X] by 50%"]