ahmido/TenantAtlas
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects 1 Releases Wiki Activity
58f9bb7355
TenantAtlas/specs/237-provider-boundary-hardening/checklists/requirements.md
ahmido bd26e209de
Some checks failed
Main Confidence / confidence (push) Failing after 57s
Details
feat: harden provider boundaries (#273) 
## Summary
- add the provider boundary catalog, boundary support types, and guardrails for platform-core versus provider-owned seams
- harden provider gateway, identity resolution, operation registry, and start-gate behavior to require explicit provider bindings
- add unit and feature coverage for boundary classification, runtime preservation, unsupported paths, and platform-core leakage guards
- add the full Spec Kit artifact set for spec 237 and update roadmap/spec-candidate tracking

## Validation
- `cd apps/platform && ./vendor/bin/sail artisan test --compact tests/Unit/Providers/ProviderBoundaryClassificationTest.php tests/Unit/Providers/ProviderBoundaryGuardrailTest.php tests/Feature/Providers/ProviderBoundaryHardeningTest.php tests/Feature/Providers/UnsupportedProviderBoundaryPathTest.php tests/Feature/Guards/ProviderBoundaryPlatformCoreGuardTest.php`
- `cd apps/platform && ./vendor/bin/sail artisan test --compact tests/Unit/Providers/ProviderGatewayTest.php tests/Unit/Providers/ProviderIdentityResolverTest.php tests/Unit/Providers/ProviderOperationStartGateTest.php`
- `cd apps/platform && ./vendor/bin/sail bin pint --dirty --format agent`
- browser smoke: `http://localhost/admin/provider-connections?tenant_id=18000000-0000-4000-8000-000000000180` loaded with the local smoke user, the empty-state CTA reached the canonical create route, and cancel returned to the scoped list

Co-authored-by: Ahmed Darrazi <ahmed.darrazi@live.de>
Reviewed-on: #273
2026-04-24 21:05:37 +00:00

1.4 KiB
Raw Blame History

Specification Quality Checklist: Provider Boundary Hardening

Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning Created: 2026-04-24 Feature: spec.md

Content Quality

  • No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs)
  • Focused on user value and business needs
  • Written for non-technical stakeholders
  • All mandatory sections completed

Requirement Completeness

  • No [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain
  • Requirements are testable and unambiguous
  • Success criteria are measurable
  • Success criteria are technology-agnostic (no implementation details)
  • All acceptance scenarios are defined
  • Edge cases are identified
  • Scope is clearly bounded
  • Dependencies and assumptions identified

Feature Readiness

  • All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria
  • User scenarios cover primary flows
  • Feature meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria
  • No implementation details leak into specification

Notes

  • Initial draft created from the prioritized candidate sequence in docs/product/spec-candidates.md and docs/product/roadmap.md.
  • Repo-required constitution and validation sections remain intentionally technical, but the feature scope, scenarios, requirements, and success criteria stay solution-agnostic.