Some checks failed
Main Confidence / confidence (push) Failing after 3m36s
## Summary - add explicit Gitea workflow files for PR Fast Feedback, `dev` Confidence, Heavy Governance, and Browser lanes - extend the repo-truth lane support seams with workflow profiles, trigger-aware budget enforcement, artifact publication contracts, CI summaries, and failure classification - add deterministic artifact staging, new CI governance guard coverage, and Spec 210 planning/contracts/docs updates ## Validation - `cd apps/platform && ./vendor/bin/sail bin pint --dirty --format agent` - `cd apps/platform && ./vendor/bin/sail artisan test --compact tests/Feature/Guards/CiFastFeedbackWorkflowContractTest.php tests/Feature/Guards/CiConfidenceWorkflowContractTest.php tests/Feature/Guards/CiHeavyBrowserWorkflowContractTest.php tests/Feature/Guards/CiLaneFailureClassificationContractTest.php tests/Feature/Guards/FastFeedbackLaneContractTest.php tests/Feature/Guards/ConfidenceLaneContractTest.php tests/Feature/Guards/HeavyGovernanceLaneContractTest.php tests/Feature/Guards/BrowserLaneIsolationTest.php tests/Feature/Guards/FixtureLaneImpactBudgetTest.php tests/Feature/Guards/TestLaneManifestTest.php tests/Feature/Guards/TestLaneArtifactsContractTest.php tests/Feature/Guards/TestLaneCommandContractTest.php` - `./scripts/platform-test-lane fast-feedback` - `./scripts/platform-test-lane confidence` - `./scripts/platform-test-lane heavy-governance` - `./scripts/platform-test-lane browser` - `./scripts/platform-test-report fast-feedback` - `./scripts/platform-test-report confidence` ## Notes - scheduled Heavy Governance and Browser workflows stay gated behind `TENANTATLAS_ENABLE_HEAVY_GOVERNANCE_SCHEDULE=1` and `TENANTATLAS_ENABLE_BROWSER_SCHEDULE=1` - the remaining rollout evidence task is capturing the live Gitea run set this PR enables: PR Fast Feedback, `dev` Confidence, manual and scheduled Heavy Governance, and manual and scheduled Browser runs Co-authored-by: Ahmed Darrazi <ahmed.darrazi@live.de> Reviewed-on: #243
1.8 KiB
1.8 KiB
Specification Quality Checklist: CI Test Matrix & Runtime Budget Enforcement
Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning Created: 2026-04-17 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
- Validation run: 2026-04-17
- No template placeholders or [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain.
- The spec stays repository-governance-focused: it defines trigger policy, budget semantics, artifact expectations, and contributor behavior without prescribing language-, framework-, or API-level implementation.
- CI-specific nouns such as lane, artifact, budget, and failure class are treated as domain requirements for the repository validation contract rather than low-level implementation detail.
- The scope remains intentionally narrow: it operationalizes the existing governance work from Specs 206 through 209 instead of inventing a second test-execution model.
- Items marked incomplete require spec updates before
/speckit.clarifyor/speckit.plan.