ahmido
c261b1c632
## Summary - tighten homepage messaging, hero support copy, trust teaser flow, and CTA routing for the website public-content rollout - align shared website copy, smoke expectations, and spec 404 artifacts with the latest messaging pass - replace the previously closed PR for `404-public-content-messaging` ## Commits - `44d27395` feat(website): tighten homepage messaging and trust flow - `1ddbd28b` feat(website): refine public content messaging rollout ## Validation - `git diff --check` ## Notes - local Playwright MCP output remains untracked and was not included Co-authored-by: Ahmed Darrazi <ahmed.darrazi@live.de> Reviewed-on: #398
40 lines
1.6 KiB
Markdown
40 lines
1.6 KiB
Markdown
# Specification Quality Checklist: Public Website Positioning & Content Architecture
|
|
|
|
**Purpose**: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning
|
|
|
|
**Created**: 2026-05-25
|
|
|
|
**Feature**: [spec.md](../spec.md)
|
|
|
|
## Content Quality
|
|
|
|
- [x] No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs)
|
|
- [x] Focused on user value and business needs
|
|
- [x] Written for non-technical stakeholders
|
|
- [x] All mandatory sections completed
|
|
|
|
## Requirement Completeness
|
|
|
|
- [x] No [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain
|
|
- [x] Requirements are testable and unambiguous
|
|
- [x] Success criteria are measurable
|
|
- [x] Success criteria are technology-agnostic (no implementation details)
|
|
- [x] All acceptance scenarios are defined
|
|
- [x] Edge cases are identified
|
|
- [x] Scope is clearly bounded
|
|
- [x] Dependencies and assumptions identified
|
|
|
|
## Feature Readiness
|
|
|
|
- [x] All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria
|
|
- [x] User scenarios cover primary flows
|
|
- [x] Feature meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria
|
|
- [x] No implementation details leak into specification
|
|
|
|
## Notes
|
|
|
|
- Validation pass 1 completed on 2026-05-25.
|
|
- No `[NEEDS CLARIFICATION]` markers remain; the supplied positioning, provider posture, and trust boundaries were specific enough to avoid open questions.
|
|
- Repository/workspace contract references and validation commands are intentional delivery guards, not framework-selection leakage.
|
|
- Existing downstream planning artifacts under `specs/404-public-content-messaging/` predate this refreshed spec and should be reconciled before implementation continues.
|