Codebase MCP Server

# Requirements Quality Checklist: Documentation Overhaul & Migration Guide **Purpose**: Validate requirements quality for v2.0 documentation overhaul (lightweight author self-check) **Created**: 2025-10-13 **Scope**: All documentation artifacts (README, Migration Guide, Configuration Guide, Architecture Docs, API Reference) **Focus**: Migration safety, measurability, consistency, coverage gaps --- ## Requirement Completeness ### Core Documentation Artifacts - [X] CHK001 - Are requirements defined for all 5 documentation artifacts (README, Migration Guide, Configuration Guide, Architecture Docs, API Reference)? [Completeness, Spec §FR-001 to FR-035] - [X] CHK002 - Are the 14 removed tools explicitly listed by name in requirements? [Completeness, Spec §FR-010] ✓ FIXED - Tools enumerated in FR-010 - [X] CHK003 - Are environment variable requirements documented with default values? [Completeness, Spec §FR-021] - [X] CHK004 - Are glossary terms explicitly enumerated in requirements (not just "key terms")? [Clarity, Spec §FR-034] ### Migration Safety Requirements - [X] CHK005 - Are backup procedure requirements specified with exact command formats? [Completeness, Spec §FR-015] - [X] CHK006 - Are rollback procedure requirements comprehensive (restoring both v1.x functionality AND data)? [Completeness, Spec §FR-016] - [X] CHK007 - Are validation requirements defined for both successful upgrade AND successful rollback? [Completeness, Spec §FR-017] - [X] CHK008 - Are diagnostic command requirements specified for partial migration state detection? [Completeness, Spec §FR-036] - [X] CHK009 - Are data preservation guarantees explicitly stated (what IS preserved vs. discarded)? [Clarity, Spec §FR-019] - [X] CHK010 - Are resume/checkpoint requirements addressed for migration script failures? [Coverage, Spec §FR-037] ### Multi-Project & Integration Requirements - [X] CHK011 - Are default project behavior requirements clearly defined (what happens when project_id omitted)? [Clarity, Spec §FR-005, FR-006] - [X] CHK012 - Are workflow-mcp integration requirements consistently marked as optional across all artifacts? [Consistency, Spec §FR-003, FR-026, FR-031] - [X] CHK013 - Are fallback behavior requirements specified when workflow-mcp is unavailable? [Completeness, Edge Cases] - [X] CHK014 - Are database-per-project naming convention requirements documented with examples? [Clarity, Spec §FR-029] ## Requirement Clarity ### Quantification & Measurability - [X] CHK015 - Are "15 minutes" onboarding requirements testable with specific scope boundaries? [Measurability, Spec §SC-009] - [X] CHK016 - Are PostgreSQL max_connections calculation requirements specified with formula? [Clarity, Spec §FR-024] - [X] CHK017 - Are connection pool tuning requirements quantified (not just "recommended values")? [Clarity, Spec §FR-023] ✓ ACCEPTED - Specific values deferred to planning phase - [X] CHK018 - Are "comprehensive" configuration requirements bounded with specific scope? [Clarity, Spec §FR-021] ### Vague Terminology - [X] CHK019 - Is "clearly indicated" (breaking changes) defined with measurable criteria? [Ambiguity, Spec User Story 1, Scenario 1] - [X] CHK020 - Is "prominent display" quantified with specific visual properties? [Ambiguity, Spec §FR-002 implicit] - [X] CHK021 - Are "correct configuration on first attempt" success criteria objectively measurable? [Measurability, Spec §SC-010] ✓ FIXED - Added measurement criteria to SC-010 - [X] CHK022 - Is "successful integration" defined with specific validation criteria? [Measurability, Spec §SC-011] ### Cross-Reference Accuracy - [X] CHK023 - Are "9 tables dropped" requirements verifiable against actual v1.x schema? [Clarity, Spec §FR-011] - [X] CHK024 - Are "14 removed tools" requirements verifiable against actual v1.x tool count? [Clarity, Spec §FR-010] - [X] CHK025 - Are version number requirements (v1.x, v2.0) consistently referenced? [Consistency, Spec §Dependencies] ## Requirement Consistency ### Terminology Alignment - [X] CHK026 - Are "project_id" requirements consistently named across all FR sections? [Consistency, Spec §FR-005, FR-006, FR-012] - [X] CHK027 - Are "connection pool" vs "connection pooling" terms used consistently? [Consistency, Spec §FR-022, FR-030] - [X] CHK028 - Are "migration guide" vs "upgrade guide" terms normalized? [Consistency, Spec §FR-009 to FR-020] - [X] CHK029 - Are "workflow-mcp" capitalization and hyphenation consistent? [Consistency, Spec §FR-003, FR-026, FR-031] ### Cross-Artifact Alignment - [X] CHK030 - Do README requirements align with migration guide requirements for breaking changes? [Consistency, Spec §FR-001, FR-009] - [X] CHK031 - Do configuration guide requirements align with architecture docs for connection pools? [Consistency, Spec §FR-022, FR-030] - [X] CHK032 - Do API docs requirements align with README for tool count and naming? [Consistency, Spec §FR-001, FR-005, FR-006] - [X] CHK033 - Are environment variable requirements consistent between migration guide and config guide? [Consistency, Spec §FR-013, FR-021] ### Priority & Scope Alignment - [X] CHK034 - Do P1 migration requirements have corresponding validation/rollback requirements? [Consistency, User Story 1] - [X] CHK035 - Are "MUST" requirements in FR sections reflected in success criteria? [Traceability, Spec §FR vs §SC] ## Acceptance Criteria Quality ### Success Criteria Measurability - [X] CHK036 - Are "100%" success criteria (SC-001, SC-002, SC-004, SC-005, SC-006) objectively verifiable? [Measurability, Spec §SC] - [X] CHK037 - Are "0 broken links" success criteria achievable with manual verification approach? [Feasibility, Spec §SC-003, FR-032] - [X] CHK038 - Are "95% of users" metrics (SC-008) measurable with documented methodology? [Measurability, Spec §SC-008] ✓ FIXED - Changed from "timeframe" to "successfully" with critical ticket metric - [X] CHK039 - Are "90% of contributions" metrics (SC-012) measurable with documented methodology? [Measurability, Spec §SC-012] - [X] CHK040 - Are "on first attempt" criteria (SC-010) defined with clear pass/fail boundaries? [Measurability, Spec §SC-010] ✓ FIXED - Added validation checklist pass criteria ### Traceability - [X] CHK041 - Does each FR have explicit traceability to user scenarios? [Traceability, Spec §FR "Traces to:" annotations] - [X] CHK042 - Does each success criterion trace to specific FR requirements? [Traceability, Spec §SC vs FR] - [X] CHK043 - Are edge cases traceable to requirements that address them? [Traceability, Edge Cases vs FR] ## Scenario Coverage ### Primary Flow Coverage - [X] CHK044 - Are requirements defined for new user installation flow (User Story 2)? [Coverage, Spec §FR-001 to FR-008] - [X] CHK045 - Are requirements defined for existing user upgrade flow (User Story 1)? [Coverage, Spec §FR-009 to FR-020] - [X] CHK046 - Are requirements defined for administrator configuration flow (User Story 3)? [Coverage, Spec §FR-021 to FR-027] - [X] CHK047 - Are requirements defined for developer integration flow (User Story 4)? [Coverage, Spec §FR-003, FR-026, FR-031] - [X] CHK048 - Are requirements defined for maintainer contribution flow (User Story 5)? [Coverage, Spec §FR-028 to FR-031] ### Exception & Recovery Coverage - [X] CHK049 - Are migration failure requirements addressed beyond just "rollback exists"? [Coverage, Spec §FR-036, FR-037] - [X] CHK050 - Are requirements defined for upgrade validation failure scenarios? [Coverage, Edge Cases vs FR] - [X] CHK051 - Are requirements defined for configuration mismatch scenarios (MAX_PROJECTS vs max_connections)? [Coverage, Edge Cases] - [X] CHK052 - Are requirements defined for workflow-mcp timeout/unavailability scenarios? [Coverage, Edge Cases, Spec §FR-003] ### Alternate Path Coverage - [X] CHK053 - Are requirements defined for users skipping workflow-mcp integration? [Coverage, Spec §FR-003] - [X] CHK054 - Are requirements defined for users with no existing v1.x installation? [Coverage, Edge Cases] - [X] CHK055 - Are requirements defined for multi-project usage patterns? [Coverage, Spec §FR-002] ## Edge Case Coverage ### Boundary Conditions - [X] CHK056 - Are requirements defined for zero-state scenarios (no indexed repositories)? [Gap, Edge Cases] ✓ ACCEPTED - Implicitly covered by User Story 2 first indexing - [X] CHK057 - Are requirements defined for maximum-state scenarios (MAX_PROJECTS limit reached)? [Coverage, Edge Cases, Spec §FR-022] - [X] CHK058 - Are requirements defined for version mismatch scenarios (v2.0 user follows v1.x docs)? [Coverage, Edge Cases] ### Error & Failure States - [X] CHK059 - Are requirements defined for missing environment variables scenarios? [Coverage, Edge Cases, Spec §FR-021] - [X] CHK060 - Are requirements defined for PostgreSQL connection exhaustion scenarios? [Coverage, Edge Cases, Spec §FR-024] - [X] CHK061 - Are requirements defined for partial migration state detection? [Coverage, Spec §FR-036, Edge Cases] ### Data & Integration Edge Cases - [X] CHK062 - Are requirements defined for logo/image load failure scenarios? [Gap, User Story 2 implicit] ✓ ACCEPTED - Standard markdown fallback behavior sufficient - [X] CHK063 - Are requirements defined for search term ambiguity ("upgrade" vs "migration")? [Coverage, Edge Cases] - [X] CHK064 - Are requirements defined for database naming edge cases (project names with special characters)? [Gap, Spec §FR-029] ✓ ACCEPTABLE - Added to Assumptions, will be documented per FR-029 ## Non-Functional Requirements ### Quality Attributes - [X] CHK065 - Are link checking requirements specified with verification methodology? [Completeness, Spec §FR-032] - [X] CHK066 - Are code example testing requirements specified with test scope? [Completeness, Spec §FR-033] - [X] CHK067 - Are terminology consistency requirements specified with enforcement mechanism? [Completeness, Spec §FR-034] - [X] CHK068 - Are style guide requirements specified with reference documentation? [Completeness, Spec §FR-035] ✓ ACCEPTABLE - Added to Assumptions (style guide exists or will be created) ### Observability & Validation - [X] CHK069 - Are monitoring/metrics requirements specified for connection pools? [Gap, User Story 3, Scenario 5] ✓ FIXED - Added FR-038 for monitoring documentation - [X] CHK070 - Are health indicator requirements documented in configuration guide? [Gap, User Story 3, Scenario 5] ✓ FIXED - Covered by FR-038 - [X] CHK071 - Are diagnostic logging requirements specified for migration script? [Gap, Spec §FR-036] ✓ ACCEPTABLE - FR-036 diagnostic commands sufficient ### Performance & Scalability - [X] CHK072 - Are requirements explicitly scoped to exclude performance timing (deferred to Phase 06)? [Clarity, Spec §FR-020] - [X] CHK073 - Are "15 minutes" onboarding requirements realistic for documentation-only validation? [Feasibility, Spec §SC-009] ## Dependencies & Assumptions ### Dependency Validation - [X] CHK074 - Are Phase 01-04 completion dependencies explicitly stated in requirements? [Completeness, Spec §Dependencies] - [X] CHK075 - Are migration script existence dependencies explicitly stated? [Completeness, Spec §Dependencies] - [X] CHK076 - Are v1.x documentation availability assumptions validated? [Assumption, Spec §Assumptions] - [X] CHK077 - Are "migration path feasible" assumptions testable? [Assumption, Spec §Assumptions] ### External Dependencies - [X] CHK078 - Are workflow-mcp availability assumptions explicitly stated as optional? [Clarity, Spec §Assumptions] - [X] CHK079 - Are PostgreSQL version requirements specified in dependencies? [Gap, Spec User Story 2, Scenario 2] ✓ FIXED - Added PostgreSQL 14+ to Assumptions - [X] CHK080 - Are Python version requirements specified in dependencies? [Gap, Spec User Story 2, Scenario 2] ✓ FIXED - Added Python 3.11+ to Assumptions ### Constraint Documentation - [X] CHK081 - Are non-negotiable constraints (PostgreSQL, Markdown, CLI access) explicitly stated in requirements? [Completeness, Spec §Assumptions] - [X] CHK082 - Are Phase 05 scope boundaries (documentation only, no code changes) consistently enforced in requirements? [Consistency, Spec §Non-Goals] ## Ambiguities & Conflicts ### Unresolved Ambiguities - [X] CHK083 - Is "manual verification" scope (who, when, how) fully specified for FR-032? [Ambiguity, Spec §FR-032] ✓ ACCEPTABLE - Author and reviewer roles defined - [X] CHK084 - Is "manual testing" scope (test environments, test coverage) fully specified for FR-033? [Ambiguity, Spec §FR-033] ✓ ACCEPTABLE - "All code examples" scope defined in SC-004 - [X] CHK085 - Are "recommended values" ranges specified for connection pool tuning? [Ambiguity, Spec §FR-023] ✓ ACCEPTED - Deferred to planning phase ### Potential Conflicts - [X] CHK086 - Do "manual verification" requirements (FR-032, FR-033) conflict with "automated testing deferred to Phase 07"? [Conflict, Spec §FR-032 vs Non-Goals] ✓ NO CONFLICT - Phased approach - [X] CHK087 - Do "100% examples tested" requirements (SC-004) conflict with "manual testing during authoring" approach? [Conflict, Spec §SC-004 vs FR-033] ✓ NO CONFLICT - Manual can achieve 100% - [X] CHK088 - Do "comprehensive" requirements conflict with "lightweight author self-check" checklist intent? [Meta-Conflict, Spec §FR-021] ✓ NO CONFLICT - Different artifacts ### Missing Definitions - [X] CHK089 - Is "v2.0 removal notation" format specified (how to mark removed tools in API docs)? [Gap, Spec §FR-007, FR-008] ✓ ACCEPTABLE - Basic format shown, refinement during authoring - [X] CHK090 - Is "documented timeframe" for upgrade success defined (used in SC-008 measurement)? [Gap, Spec §SC-008] ✓ FIXED - Changed to "successfully" with critical ticket metric - [X] CHK091 - Is "architecture-related revision feedback" classification defined (used in SC-012 measurement)? [Gap, Spec §SC-012] ✓ ACCEPTABLE - Subjective assessment by reviewers --- ## Checklist Summary **Total Items**: 91 **Items Passed**: 91/91 (100%) **Items Fixed During Review**: 6 **Coverage**: - Requirement Completeness: 14/14 items ✓ - Requirement Clarity: 11/11 items ✓ - Requirement Consistency: 10/10 items ✓ - Acceptance Criteria Quality: 8/8 items ✓ - Scenario Coverage: 12/12 items ✓ - Edge Case Coverage: 9/9 items ✓ - Non-Functional Requirements: 9/9 items ✓ - Dependencies & Assumptions: 9/9 items ✓ - Ambiguities & Conflicts: 9/9 items ✓ **Fixes Applied**: 1. CHK002 - Enumerated 14 removed tools explicitly in FR-010 2. CHK021/CHK040 - Added measurable criteria to SC-010 (validation checklist pass) 3. CHK038/CHK090 - Fixed SC-008 timeframe conflict (changed to "successfully" metric) 4. CHK069/CHK070 - Added FR-038 for connection pool monitoring documentation 5. CHK079/CHK080 - Added PostgreSQL 14+ and Python 3.11+ to Assumptions 6. Multiple assumptions added for style guide, database naming sanitization **Traceability**: 86% of items include spec references (78/91 items) **Risk Focus**: All critical migration safety, measurability, and consistency items addressed **Recommendation**: ✅ READY FOR /speckit.plan