ahmido
f03555eae1
## Summary - add the Spec 295 artifacts for full-suite failure classification and CI lane baseline work - fix `scripts/platform-test-artifacts` so Sail passes artifact staging inputs into the embedded PHP script via argv - add a guard test covering the artifact staging input contract ## Scope guards - no browser screenshot baselines included - no generated test artifacts included - no runtime application code changes included ## Notes - classification evidence and follow-up ownership are documented in `specs/295-full-suite-ci-baseline/failure-classification.md` - this PR is intentionally limited to the CI/lane/artifact contract slice for Spec 295 Co-authored-by: Ahmed Darrazi <ahmed.darrazi@live.de> Reviewed-on: #350
46 lines
2.8 KiB
Markdown
46 lines
2.8 KiB
Markdown
# Specification Quality Checklist: Full Suite Failure Classification & CI Lane Baseline
|
|
|
|
**Purpose**: Validate specification completeness and quality before implementation
|
|
**Created**: 2026-05-11
|
|
**Feature**: `/Users/ahmeddarrazi/Documents/projects/wt-plattform/specs/295-full-suite-ci-baseline/spec.md`
|
|
|
|
## Content Quality
|
|
|
|
- [x] No application implementation details leak into product requirements beyond required repo-truth paths and validation commands.
|
|
- [x] Focused on user value and business needs: restored or classified CI signal after Specs `293` and `294`.
|
|
- [x] Written for maintainers and reviewers who must interpret CI output.
|
|
- [x] All mandatory Spec Kit sections are completed or explicitly marked N/A.
|
|
|
|
## Requirement Completeness
|
|
|
|
- [x] No unresolved clarification markers remain.
|
|
- [x] Requirements are testable and unambiguous.
|
|
- [x] Success criteria are measurable.
|
|
- [x] Success criteria are technology-aware only where repo validation commands require it.
|
|
- [x] All acceptance scenarios are defined.
|
|
- [x] Edge cases are identified.
|
|
- [x] Scope is clearly bounded.
|
|
- [x] Dependencies and assumptions are identified.
|
|
|
|
## Feature Readiness
|
|
|
|
- [x] All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria.
|
|
- [x] User scenarios cover primary classification, lane signal, follow-up split, and final readiness decision flows.
|
|
- [x] Feature meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria.
|
|
- [x] No application implementation has been performed during preparation.
|
|
|
|
## Spec 295 Guardrails
|
|
|
|
- [x] Pinned categories stay aligned: `ci-signal-restored`, `ci-wrapper-or-manifest-regression`, `artifact-publication-regression`, `budget-or-trend-baseline-drift`, `product-runtime-or-test-regression`, `browser-lane-regression`, `flaky-or-environment`, `follow-up-spec-required`, `resolved-or-not-needed`.
|
|
- [x] Pinned seams stay aligned: `raw-full-suite`, `fast-feedback-lane`, `confidence-lane`, `heavy-governance-lane`, `browser-lane`, `profiling-or-junit-support`, `lane-reporting`, `artifact-publication`, `budget-trend-baseline`, `legacy-cutover-regression-guard`, `provider-verification-regression-guard`.
|
|
- [x] Completed Specs `293` and `294` are context only and are not rewritten.
|
|
- [x] Legacy `/admin/t/...` and TenantPanelProvider restoration is explicitly forbidden.
|
|
- [x] In-scope fixes are limited to CI wrapper, manifest, report, artifact, and budget/trend contract defects.
|
|
- [x] Product/runtime failures are explicitly split to follow-up ownership.
|
|
- [x] No new permanent lane, CI framework, runtime persistence, provider abstraction, Filament resource, or browser family is introduced.
|
|
- [x] Filament v5 / Livewire v4 compliance is preserved; no panel provider registration change is planned.
|
|
|
|
## Notes
|
|
|
|
- Preparation analyze found no blocking readiness gap after aligning category and seam names across all artifacts.
|