Spaces:
Runtime error
Runtime error
| # Specification Quality Checklist: Full-Stack Integration & UI Experience | |
| **Purpose**: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning | |
| **Created**: 2026-01-09 | |
| **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 | |
| ## Validation Results | |
| ### Content Quality Assessment | |
| ✅ **Pass**: The specification focuses on user experience and integration outcomes without prescribing implementation details. While it mentions existing technologies (Next.js, FastAPI, etc.) in the constraints and dependencies sections, these are appropriately documented as context rather than requirements. | |
| ✅ **Pass**: The specification is written for business stakeholders and hackathon reviewers, focusing on "what" users need rather than "how" to build it. | |
| ✅ **Pass**: All mandatory sections are complete: User Scenarios, Requirements, Success Criteria, Assumptions, Dependencies, Out of Scope, and References. | |
| ### Requirement Completeness Assessment | |
| ✅ **Pass**: No [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers present. All requirements are specific and actionable. | |
| ✅ **Pass**: All 20 functional requirements are testable with clear acceptance criteria. Each requirement uses "MUST" and describes a specific, verifiable capability. | |
| ✅ **Pass**: All 10 success criteria are measurable with specific metrics: | |
| - SC-001: "under 3 minutes" (time-based) | |
| - SC-002: "within 100ms" (performance-based) | |
| - SC-003: "80% of new users" (percentage-based) | |
| - SC-004: "90% of the time" (percentage-based) | |
| - SC-005: "320px to 1920px" (range-based) | |
| - SC-006: "zero accidental clicks" (count-based) | |
| - SC-007: "zero application crashes" (count-based) | |
| - SC-008: "zero unhandled promise rejections" (count-based) | |
| - SC-009: "under 10 minutes" (time-based) | |
| - SC-010: "works end-to-end" (binary outcome) | |
| ✅ **Pass**: Success criteria are technology-agnostic and focus on user outcomes rather than implementation details. | |
| ✅ **Pass**: All 5 user stories have detailed acceptance scenarios with Given-When-Then format. Total of 30 acceptance scenarios across all stories. | |
| ✅ **Pass**: 8 edge cases identified covering token expiration, rapid API calls, server errors, special characters, unauthorized access, navigation, localStorage availability, and concurrent edits. | |
| ✅ **Pass**: Scope is clearly bounded with comprehensive "Out of Scope" section listing 15 explicitly excluded items. | |
| ✅ **Pass**: Dependencies section lists both internal (Spec 1, Spec 2, Backend API, Database) and external (Next.js, React, TypeScript, etc.) dependencies. Assumptions section lists 10 clear assumptions. | |
| ### Feature Readiness Assessment | |
| ✅ **Pass**: Each of the 20 functional requirements maps to specific acceptance scenarios in the user stories. | |
| ✅ **Pass**: 5 user stories cover the complete integration flow from authentication (P1) through UI states (P2), responsive design (P3), API communication (P4), and environment setup (P5). | |
| ✅ **Pass**: The feature delivers measurable outcomes that can be verified without knowing implementation details. All success criteria focus on user experience and system behavior. | |
| ✅ **Pass**: The specification maintains separation between requirements (what) and implementation (how). Technology mentions are appropriately scoped to constraints and dependencies sections. | |
| ## Notes | |
| **Strengths**: | |
| 1. Comprehensive coverage of integration and UI experience concerns | |
| 2. Clear prioritization with P1-P5 user stories | |
| 3. Detailed acceptance scenarios (30 total) provide excellent testability | |
| 4. Success criteria are specific and measurable | |
| 5. Well-defined scope boundaries with explicit out-of-scope items | |
| 6. Strong focus on user experience and feedback mechanisms | |
| **Observations**: | |
| 1. This is an integration/polish spec rather than a new feature spec, which is appropriate for Phase II | |
| 2. The spec correctly builds on Specs 1 and 2 without duplicating their functionality | |
| 3. The focus on loading states, error handling, and responsive design demonstrates maturity | |
| 4. The environment coordination story (P5) ensures the application is reviewable by hackathon judges | |
| **Recommendation**: ✅ **APPROVED** - Specification is ready for planning phase (`/sp.plan`) | |
| All checklist items pass validation. The specification is complete, testable, and ready for implementation planning. | |