ahmido
29ad8852ca
Some checks failed
Main Confidence / confidence (push) Failing after 1m1s
## Summary - integrate the current `platform-dev` branch into `dev` - bring the latest platform work from the integration branch into the main development branch - include the recent findings lifecycle backfill removal slice together with the already accumulated `platform-dev` changes ## Scope - source branch: `platform-dev` - target branch: `dev` - branch role: integration PR, not a single-feature PR ## Validation - branch state reviewed before PR creation - `platform-dev` is ahead of `dev` with the expected integration history - this PR intentionally carries the accumulated `platform-dev` commits into `dev` ## Notes - this is the correct merge direction for the current workflow, where feature branches land in `platform-dev` first and `platform-dev` is then merged into `dev` - after merging, `platform-dev` can be recreated fresh from `dev` as usual Co-authored-by: Ahmed Darrazi <ahmed.darrazi@live.de> Reviewed-on: #295
48 lines
2.7 KiB
Markdown
48 lines
2.7 KiB
Markdown
# Specification Quality Checklist: Remove Findings Lifecycle Backfill Runtime Surfaces
|
|
|
|
**Purpose**: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning
|
|
**Created**: 2026-04-28
|
|
**Feature**: specs/253-remove-findings-backfill-runtime-surfaces/spec.md
|
|
|
|
## Content Quality
|
|
|
|
- [x] No language/framework/API design leakage; concrete repo surfaces, commands, and labels are named only because this cleanup deletes those exact shipped traces.
|
|
- [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 unintended implementation design leakage remains beyond the explicit cleanup special-case for named repo-visible traces
|
|
|
|
## Test Governance Review
|
|
|
|
- [x] Lane fit is explicit: the package uses `fast-feedback` and `confidence`, plus one retained `heavy-governance` guard in `apps/platform/tests/Feature/OperationalControls/NoAdHocOperationalControlBypassTest.php` so operational-control bypass residue cannot survive the cleanup silently.
|
|
- [x] No new browser or heavy-governance family is introduced; the retained guard stays explicit, bounded, and tied to operational-control source-trace removal only.
|
|
- [x] Suite-cost outcome is net-negative: backfill-only tests, lane traces, and helper residue are removed in the same slice instead of widening shared defaults.
|
|
|
|
## Review Outcome
|
|
|
|
- [x] Review outcome class: `acceptable-special-case`
|
|
- [x] Workflow outcome: `keep`
|
|
- [x] Review-note location is explicit: the heavy-governance retention note lives in `spec.md`, `plan.md`, `tasks.md`, and the final preparation report.
|
|
|
|
## Notes
|
|
|
|
- The spec intentionally names concrete routes, commands, labels, and catalog keys because the product value of this slice is the removal of those specific repo-visible runtime surfaces.
|
|
- The slice stays small by deleting visible repair tooling only; acknowledged-status cleanup and creation-time invariant hardening remain explicit follow-up candidates.
|
|
- Validation pass complete: no clarification markers remain, LEAN-001 cleanup posture is explicit, and tenant-owned findings continue to treat `workspace_id` plus `tenant_id` as required anchors. |