ahmido
7ee4909212
Some checks failed
Main Confidence / confidence (push) Failing after 1m45s
## Summary - add the bounded workspace commercial lifecycle overlay from spec 251 on top of the existing entitlement substrate - expose audited commercial state inspection and mutation on the system workspace detail surface - gate onboarding activation and review-pack start actions through the shared lifecycle decision while preserving suspended read-only access to existing review, evidence, and generated-pack history - add focused Pest coverage plus the spec/plan/tasks/data-model/contract artifacts for the feature ## Validation - targeted Pest unit and feature lanes for lifecycle resolution, system-plane mutation, onboarding gating, review-pack enforcement, download preservation, customer review workspace access, and evidence snapshot access - `cd apps/platform && ./vendor/bin/sail bin pint --dirty --format agent` - integrated browser smoke on the system workspace detail and the preserved read-only review/evidence/review-pack surfaces ## Notes - branch: `251-commercial-entitlements-billing-state` - base: `dev` - commit: `606e9760` Co-authored-by: Ahmed Darrazi <ahmed.darrazi@live.de> Reviewed-on: #292
43 lines
1.9 KiB
Markdown
43 lines
1.9 KiB
Markdown
# Specification Quality Checklist: Commercial Entitlements and Billing-State Maturity
|
|
|
|
**Purpose**: Validate specification completeness and readiness before planning or implementation.
|
|
**Created**: 2026-04-28
|
|
**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
|
|
|
|
## Review Outcome
|
|
|
|
- [x] Review outcome class: acceptable-special-case
|
|
- [x] Workflow outcome: keep
|
|
- [x] Test-governance impact is explicitly recorded in the spec
|
|
|
|
## Notes
|
|
|
|
- Repo-specific surface names and existing product terms are used to anchor the spec to current truth, but the spec does not prescribe languages, frameworks, APIs, or low-level implementation design.
|
|
- No open clarification markers remain. The bounded assumptions are the default `active_paid` resolution for unset workspaces and the distinct `grace` behavior that freezes onboarding expansion without blocking in-scope review-pack starts.
|
|
- Implementation close-out keeps the workflow outcome as `keep`. The Livewire browser-smoke finding was fixed inside scope by making workspace route resolution accept Livewire serialized workspace parameters; no follow-up spec is required.
|