ahmido
bd26e209de
Some checks failed
Main Confidence / confidence (push) Failing after 57s
## 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
35 lines
1.4 KiB
Markdown
35 lines
1.4 KiB
Markdown
# Specification Quality Checklist: Provider Boundary Hardening
|
|
|
|
**Purpose**: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning
|
|
**Created**: 2026-04-24
|
|
**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
|
|
|
|
- Initial draft created from the prioritized candidate sequence in [docs/product/spec-candidates.md](../../../docs/product/spec-candidates.md) and [docs/product/roadmap.md](../../../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. |