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
39 lines
1.8 KiB
Markdown
39 lines
1.8 KiB
Markdown
# 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](../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 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.clarify` or `/speckit.plan`. |