ahmido
a107e7e41b
## Summary - add the Spec 181 restore-safety layer with scope fingerprinting, preview/check integrity states, execution safety snapshots, result attention, and operator-facing copy across the wizard, restore detail, and canonical operation detail - add focused unit and feature coverage for restore-safety assessment, result attention, and restore-linked operation detail - switch the finding exceptions queue `Inspect exception` action to a native Filament slide-over while preserving query-param-backed inline summary behavior ## Testing - `vendor/bin/sail artisan test --compact tests/Feature/Monitoring/FindingExceptionsQueueTest.php tests/Feature/Filament/RestoreSafetyIntegrityWizardTest.php tests/Feature/Filament/RestoreResultAttentionSurfaceTest.php tests/Feature/Operations/RestoreLinkedOperationDetailTest.php tests/Unit/Support/RestoreSafety` ## Notes - Spec 181 checklist is complete (`specs/181-restore-safety-integrity/checklists/requirements.md`) - the branch still has unchecked follow-up tasks in `specs/181-restore-safety-integrity/tasks.md`: `T012`, `T018`, `T019`, `T023`, `T025`, `T029`, `T032`, `T033`, `T041`, `T042`, `T043`, `T044` - Filament v5 / Livewire v4 compliance is preserved, no panel provider registration changes were made, no global-search behavior was added, destructive actions remain confirmation-gated, and no new Filament assets were introduced Co-authored-by: Ahmed Darrazi <ahmed.darrazi@live.de> Reviewed-on: #210
36 lines
1.4 KiB
Markdown
36 lines
1.4 KiB
Markdown
# Specification Quality Checklist: Restore Safety Integrity
|
|
|
|
**Purpose**: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning
|
|
**Created**: 2026-04-06
|
|
**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
|
|
|
|
- Validation pass completed on 2026-04-06.
|
|
- The spec keeps constitution-mandated surface, route, and capability references, but avoids code-structure or file-level implementation design.
|
|
- No clarification markers were required; scope, constraints, and acceptance boundaries are explicit enough to move directly into planning. |