ahmido
02e75e1cda
## Summary - add a shared baseline compare summary assessment and assessor for compact trust propagation - harden dashboard, landing, and banner baseline compare surfaces against false all-clear claims - add focused Pest coverage for dashboard, landing, banner, reason translation, and canonical detail parity ## Validation - vendor/bin/sail bin pint --dirty --format agent - vendor/bin/sail artisan test --compact tests/Feature/Baselines/BaselineCompareSummaryAssessmentTest.php tests/Feature/Baselines/BaselineCompareExplanationFallbackTest.php tests/Feature/Filament/BaselineCompareNowWidgetTest.php tests/Feature/Filament/NeedsAttentionWidgetTest.php tests/Feature/Filament/BaselineCompareExplanationSurfaceTest.php tests/Feature/Filament/BaselineCompareLandingWhyNoFindingsTest.php tests/Feature/Filament/BaselineCompareCoverageBannerTest.php tests/Feature/Filament/BaselineCompareSummaryConsistencyTest.php tests/Feature/Filament/OperationRunBaselineTruthSurfaceTest.php tests/Feature/ReasonTranslation/ReasonTranslationExplanationTest.php ## Notes - Livewire compliance: Filament v5 / Livewire v4 stack unchanged - Provider registration: unchanged, Laravel 12 providers remain in bootstrap/providers.php - Global search: no searchable resource behavior changed - Destructive actions: none introduced by this change - Assets: no new assets registered; existing deploy process remains unchanged Co-authored-by: Ahmed Darrazi <ahmed.darrazi@live.de> Reviewed-on: #196
36 lines
1.4 KiB
Markdown
36 lines
1.4 KiB
Markdown
# Specification Quality Checklist: Baseline Compare Summary Trust Propagation & Compliance Claim Hardening
|
|
|
|
**Purpose**: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning
|
|
**Created**: 2026-03-26
|
|
**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 completed in one pass.
|
|
- No clarification markers were needed; the supplied feature description was specific enough to define scope, risks, and measurable outcomes.
|
|
- The spec stays focused on summary-truth propagation and explicitly excludes backend compare-engine or persistence redesign. |