ahmido
bef9020159
## Summary - codify Spec 193 as an explicit monitoring/workbench surface inventory with validator and guard coverage - refactor the Finding Exceptions Queue, Operations landing, and tenantless operation viewer into clearer context, navigation, utility, drilldown, and focused-work lanes - align Alerts, Audit Log, and Alert Deliveries with quiet origin-context handling while preserving calm reference surfaces and the explicit Tenant Diagnostics exception - add focused feature coverage, guard coverage, browser smoke coverage, and the full spec artifacts for Spec 193 ## Verification - `cd apps/platform && ./vendor/bin/sail artisan test --compact tests/Feature/Guards/ActionSurfaceContractTest.php tests/Feature/Guards/ActionSurfaceValidatorTest.php tests/Feature/Guards/Spec193MonitoringSurfaceHierarchyGuardTest.php tests/Feature/OpsUx/OperateHubShellTest.php tests/Feature/Operations/TenantlessOperationRunViewerTest.php tests/Feature/Monitoring/FindingExceptionsQueueHierarchyTest.php tests/Browser/Spec193MonitoringSurfaceHierarchySmokeTest.php` - `cd apps/platform && ./vendor/bin/sail bin pint --dirty --format agent` - integrated-browser smoke pass over queue, operations, operation detail, alerts, audit log, and tenant diagnostics ## Notes - Livewire v4 / Filament v5 stack unchanged - no provider-registration changes; Laravel 11+ provider registration remains in `bootstrap/providers.php` - no new global-search behavior was introduced - destructive and governance-changing actions keep their existing confirmation and authorization semantics - no new assets or migrations were added Co-authored-by: Ahmed Darrazi <ahmed.darrazi@live.de> Reviewed-on: #227
36 lines
1.3 KiB
Markdown
36 lines
1.3 KiB
Markdown
# Specification Quality Checklist: Monitoring Surface Action Hierarchy and Workbench Semantics
|
|
|
|
**Purpose**: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning
|
|
**Created**: 2026-04-11
|
|
**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 completed in one pass.
|
|
- No clarification markers remain in the specification.
|
|
- Required operator-surface contract and UI action matrix sections are present and bounded to action hierarchy semantics rather than implementation design. |