ahmido
55aef627aa
## Summary - harden findings and finding-exception Filament surfaces so workflow state, governance validity, overdue urgency, and next action are operator-first - add tenant stats widgets, segmented tabs, richer governance warnings, and baseline/dashboard attention propagation for overdue and lapsed governance states - add Spec 166 artifacts plus regression coverage for findings, badges, baseline summaries, tenantless operation viewer behavior, and critical table standards ## Verification - `vendor/bin/sail bin pint --dirty --format agent` - `vendor/bin/sail artisan test --compact` ## Filament Notes - Livewire v4.0+ compliance: yes, implementation stays on Filament v5 / Livewire v4 APIs only - Provider registration: unchanged, Laravel 12 panel/provider registration remains in `bootstrap/providers.php` - Global search: unchanged in this slice; `FindingExceptionResource` stays not globally searchable, no new globally searchable resource was introduced - Destructive actions: existing revoke/reject/approve/renew/workflow mutations remain capability-gated and confirmation-gated where already defined - Asset strategy: no new assets added; existing deploy process remains unchanged, including `php artisan filament:assets` when registered assets are used - Testing plan delivered: findings list/detail, exception register, dashboard attention, baseline summary, badge semantics, and tenantless operation viewer coverage Co-authored-by: Ahmed Darrazi <ahmed.darrazi@live.de> Reviewed-on: #197
37 lines
1.9 KiB
Markdown
37 lines
1.9 KiB
Markdown
# Specification Quality Checklist: Finding Governance Health & Resolution Semantics Surface Hardening
|
|
|
|
**Purpose**: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning
|
|
**Created**: 2026-03-27
|
|
**Feature**: [spec.md](/Users/ahmeddarrazi/Documents/projects/TenantAtlas/specs/166-finding-governance-health/spec.md)
|
|
|
|
## Content Quality
|
|
|
|
- [x] No code-level implementation mechanics (new classes, schema, jobs, or algorithms) are prescribed
|
|
- [x] Focused on user value and business needs
|
|
- [x] Written for product, design, and implementation stakeholders in repo-native spec language
|
|
- [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 code-level implementation mechanics leak into the specification beyond required route, RBAC, operator-surface contract detail, and UI Action Matrix location references
|
|
|
|
## Notes
|
|
|
|
- Validation pass 1 completed against the finished spec.
|
|
- No open clarification markers remain.
|
|
- Proportionality review completed: the spec explicitly records that it adds no new source of truth, persistence, abstraction, state family, or cross-domain taxonomy.
|
|
- The spec intentionally references existing route surfaces and shared semantic primitives because this repo's spec template requires operator-surface and constitution alignment details; it does not prescribe implementation mechanics. |