ahmido
3c3daae405
## Summary - introduce a shared operator outcome taxonomy with semantic axes, severity bands, and next-action policy - apply the taxonomy to operations, evidence/review completeness, baseline semantics, and restore semantics - harden badge rendering, tenant-safe filtering/search behavior, and operator-facing summary/notification wording - add the spec kit artifacts, reference documentation, and regression coverage for diagnostic-vs-primary state handling ## Testing - focused Pest coverage for taxonomy registry and badge guardrails - operations presentation and notification tests - evidence, baseline, restore, and tenant-scope regression tests ## Notes - Livewire v4.0+ compliance is preserved in the existing Filament v5 stack - panel provider registration remains unchanged in bootstrap/providers.php - no new globally searchable resource was added; adopted resources remain tenant-safe and out of global search where required - no new destructive action family was introduced; existing actions keep their current authorization and confirmation behavior - no new frontend asset strategy was introduced; existing deploy flow with filament:assets remains unchanged Co-authored-by: Ahmed Darrazi <ahmed.darrazi@live.de> Reviewed-on: #186
35 lines
1.4 KiB
Markdown
35 lines
1.4 KiB
Markdown
# Specification Quality Checklist: Operator Outcome Taxonomy and Cross-Domain State Separation
|
|
|
|
**Purpose**: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning
|
|
**Created**: 2026-03-21
|
|
**Feature**: [spec.md](/Users/ahmeddarrazi/Documents/projects/TenantAtlas/specs/156-operator-outcome-taxonomy/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 against the initial draft.
|
|
- Strategic selection rationale is captured in the spec's final direction: this candidate is the recommended first step of the operator-truth initiative because downstream candidates depend on a shared vocabulary. |