Codebase MCP Server

# Checklist: Release Readiness - Performance Validation & Multi-Tenant Testing **Purpose**: Validate requirements quality for production deployment readiness. This checklist tests whether performance validation requirements are complete, measurable, traceable to constitutional principles, and sufficient for production go/no-go decisions. **Feature**: 011-performance-validation-multi **Created**: 2025-10-13 **Focus**: Constitutional Compliance Traceability + Performance Metrics Rigor **Depth**: Release Readiness Assessment (Comprehensive) **Audience**: Release decision makers, technical reviewers --- ## Constitutional Traceability & Compliance **Purpose**: Validate that all performance requirements trace to constitutional principles and compliance is verifiable. - [ ] CHK001 - Is the traceability from each performance target to Constitutional Principle IV explicitly documented? [Traceability, Spec FR-001 through FR-020] - [ ] CHK002 - Are the four core constitutional performance targets (60s indexing, 500ms search, 50ms switching, 100ms queries) consistently referenced across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md? [Consistency] - [ ] CHK003 - Is the constitutional threshold for "performance guarantee" vs "performance degradation" unambiguously defined? [Clarity, Constitution Principle IV] - [ ] CHK004 - Are all 11 constitutional principles explicitly validated with measurable acceptance criteria? [Completeness, Spec §Success Criteria] - [ ] CHK005 - Does the hybrid regression detection logic (10% degradation + constitutional targets) have formal definition and rationale? [Clarity, Spec FR-018] - [ ] CHK006 - Is the relationship between FR-018 (hybrid regression) and SC-005 (10% variance) internally consistent? [Consistency, Spec FR-018 vs SC-005] - [ ] CHK007 - Are constitutional violation consequences (what happens if targets not met) specified? [Gap, Consequence Flow] - [ ] CHK008 - Is the precedence rule for conflicting thresholds (baseline vs constitutional) unambiguous? [Clarity, Research §6 lines 268-305] --- ## Performance Metrics Clarity & Measurability **Purpose**: Validate that all performance metrics are quantified, unambiguous, and objectively measurable. - [ ] CHK009 - Are all latency metrics specified with exact statistical measures (mean, p50, p95, p99, min, max)? [Clarity, Data Model §PerformanceBenchmarkResult] - [ ] CHK010 - Is the sample size requirement for statistical validity specified for each benchmark type? [Gap, Quickstart Scenario 1] - [ ] CHK011 - Are measurement units consistently specified (milliseconds vs seconds) across all performance requirements? [Consistency, Spec FR-001 through FR-004] - [ ] CHK012 - Is "p95 latency" operationally defined (algorithm, rounding, boundary conditions)? [Clarity] - [ ] CHK013 - Are warm-up iteration requirements specified to prevent skewed benchmarks? [Completeness, Research §1 lines 29-42] - [ ] CHK014 - Is the test environment specification (CPU, memory, disk) defined to ensure reproducible measurements? [Gap, Spec §Assumptions] - [ ] CHK015 - Are network latency assumptions (<10ms local) validated and documented? [Assumption, Spec §Assumptions line 182] - [ ] CHK016 - Is the database state (clean vs pre-populated) requirement specified for each benchmark? [Clarity, Spec §Assumptions line 179] - [ ] CHK017 - Is "graceful degradation" under load quantified with specific thresholds (p95 < 2000ms vs < 500ms)? [Clarity, Spec User Story 3 line 68] - [ ] CHK018 - Are concurrent client simulation parameters (ramp-up rate, duration, request pacing) specified? [Completeness, Quickstart §Scenario 4] - [ ] CHK019 - Is the uptime calculation formula (99.9% over 1 hour) explicitly defined? [Clarity, Spec SC-007] - [ ] CHK020 - Are resource utilization metrics (CPU, memory, connection pool) defined with measurement methodology? [Gap, Data Model §LoadTestResult] --- ## Acceptance Criteria Quality & Objectivity **Purpose**: Validate that success criteria are measurable, testable, and provide objective pass/fail determination. - [ ] CHK021 - Can each Success Criterion (SC-001 through SC-014) be verified with automated tests producing pass/fail results? [Measurability, Spec §Success Criteria] - [ ] CHK022 - Is the variance threshold "less than 5% variance across 5 runs" (SC-001) statistically rigorous (standard deviation, confidence interval)? [Clarity, Spec SC-001] - [ ] CHK023 - Are baseline comparison requirements (pre-split vs post-split) operationally defined with specific JSON schema? [Completeness, Research §1] - [ ] CHK024 - Is the file count for "10,000-file repository" exact or approximate? Are variations (9,900 vs 10,100) acceptable? [Clarity, Spec FR-001] - [ ] CHK025 - Are the definitions of "operational", "unresponsive", and "crashed" for server health objectively measurable? [Clarity, Spec FR-007] - [ ] CHK026 - Is "100% pass rate" (SC-011) achievable or should it be "≥95% pass rate allowing flaky tests"? [Feasibility, Spec SC-011] - [ ] CHK027 - Are integration test "pass" criteria defined beyond HTTP status codes (response time, data integrity, state consistency)? [Completeness, Spec User Story 2] - [ ] CHK028 - Is "zero data loss" (FR-009) verifiable with specific checksum/hash validation requirements? [Measurability, Spec FR-009] - [ ] CHK029 - Are health check "detailed status" requirements (FR-011) enumerated with specific fields and formats? [Completeness, Spec FR-011, Contracts §health-endpoint] - [ ] CHK030 - Is the Prometheus metrics format compliance testable against official specification? [Traceability, Spec FR-012, Contracts §metrics-endpoint] --- ## Test Scenario Completeness & Coverage **Purpose**: Validate that test scenarios cover all user stories, acceptance criteria, and constitutional requirements. - [ ] CHK031 - Does each User Story (US1-US5) map to specific test scenarios in quickstart.md? [Traceability, Quickstart §Scenarios 1-6] - [ ] CHK032 - Are test scenarios defined for all 20 Functional Requirements (FR-001 through FR-020)? [Coverage, Spec §Functional Requirements] - [ ] CHK033 - Are test scenarios defined for all 14 Success Criteria (SC-001 through SC-014)? [Coverage, Spec §Success Criteria] - [ ] CHK034 - Are baseline collection procedures (pre-split measurement) documented if baseline is missing? [Completeness, Quickstart §Scenario 1 line 65, Tasks T018] - [ ] CHK035 - Are fixture generation requirements (10k and 50k file repositories) specified with file size distribution, directory structure, and code complexity? [Completeness, Research §7, Tasks T002] - [ ] CHK036 - Are workflow-mcp test data requirements (project count, entity count, work item relationships) specified? [Gap, Tasks T003] - [ ] CHK037 - Is the workflow-mcp server availability (hypothetical vs implemented) clarified for cross-server testing? [Ambiguity, Plan §Project Structure line 121] - [ ] CHK038 - Are mock server strategies for unavailable services specified (workflow-mcp down, codebase-mcp down)? [Completeness, Quickstart §Scenario 3] - [ ] CHK039 - Are contract test requirements (MCP protocol compliance) specified beyond OpenAPI schema validation? [Gap, Spec §Edge Cases, Plan §Contract Tests line 137] - [ ] CHK040 - Are performance regression detection tests (CI/CD integration) requirements specified? [Completeness, Spec SC-012] --- ## Failure & Recovery Requirements Specification **Purpose**: Validate that failure scenarios, error handling, and recovery paths are completely specified. - [ ] CHK041 - Are all database failure modes (connection timeout, authentication failure, schema mismatch) enumerated with recovery requirements? [Coverage, Spec User Story 4] - [ ] CHK042 - Is the exponential backoff algorithm for reconnection explicitly defined (initial delay, multiplier, max retries)? [Clarity, Spec FR-008] - [ ] CHK043 - Are checkpoint/resume requirements for interrupted operations (indexing, migration) specified? [Gap, Spec FR-009] - [ ] CHK044 - Is "no cascading failure" (FR-010) operationally defined with specific isolation requirements? [Clarity, Spec FR-010] - [ ] CHK045 - Are timeout values for all async operations specified (database queries, HTTP requests, indexing)? [Gap, Spec User Story 4] - [ ] CHK046 - Is connection pool exhaustion behavior (queuing, 503 responses, timeout) completely specified? [Completeness, Spec FR-016] - [ ] CHK047 - Are stale entity reference handling requirements (detection, user messaging, graceful degradation) specified? [Completeness, Spec FR-019, Quickstart lines 232-245] - [ ] CHK048 - Are port conflict error messages and resolution steps specified? [Completeness, Spec User Story 4 line 88] - [ ] CHK049 - Are schema migration failure scenarios (outdated schema, incompatible version) covered? [Gap, Spec §Edge Cases line 116] - [ ] CHK050 - Is the rollback procedure for failed performance validation specified? [Gap, Recovery Flow] - [ ] CHK051 - Are partial failure scenarios (1 of 5 benchmarks fails) handling requirements defined? [Gap, Exception Flow] - [ ] CHK052 - Is the "detection within 5 seconds" requirement (FR-008) for failures specified as wall-clock time or processing time? [Ambiguity, Spec FR-008] --- ## Edge Case & Boundary Condition Coverage **Purpose**: Validate that edge cases, boundary conditions, and exceptional scenarios are addressed in requirements. - [ ] CHK053 - Are requirements specified for repository sizes at boundaries (0 files, exactly 10,000, 50,000+)? [Coverage, Spec §Scale/Scope line 30] - [ ] CHK054 - Are requirements specified for edge cases in all 10 enumerated edge case questions? [Coverage, Spec §Edge Cases lines 111-123] - [ ] CHK055 - Is zero-state handling (no repositories indexed, no projects, no entities) specified? [Gap, Edge Case] - [ ] CHK056 - Are concurrent operation conflicts (simultaneous indexing of same repository) requirements defined? [Gap, Spec §Edge Cases line 123] - [ ] CHK057 - Are binary file handling requirements (parsing failures, skipping) specified for indexing? [Gap, Spec §Edge Cases line 119] - [ ] CHK058 - Are rapid successive operation requirements (10 project switches in 1 second) specified? [Gap, Spec §Edge Cases line 118] - [ ] CHK059 - Are metrics endpoint performance impact requirements specified (does metrics query slow indexing)? [Gap, Spec §Edge Cases line 122] - [ ] CHK060 - Are simultaneous server restart scenarios (Docker Compose restart) requirements defined? [Gap, Spec §Edge Cases line 117] - [ ] CHK061 - Are connection pool boundary conditions (min_size, max_size, all connections busy) specified? [Completeness, Spec FR-015, FR-016] - [ ] CHK062 - Is behavior at exactly 80% connection pool utilization (warning threshold) specified? [Ambiguity, Spec FR-014] - [ ] CHK063 - Are memory leak detection requirements (sustained load monitoring) specified? [Gap, Spec User Story 3 line 71] --- ## Non-Functional Requirements Specification **Purpose**: Validate that performance, security, accessibility, and operational requirements are specified. - [ ] CHK064 - Are all performance thresholds in FR-001 through FR-004 validated against constitutional Principle IV targets? [Consistency, Spec §Functional Requirements vs Constitution] - [ ] CHK065 - Are structured logging requirements (JSON format, required fields) completely enumerated? [Completeness, Spec FR-013] - [ ] CHK066 - Are log retention and rotation requirements specified for test execution? [Gap, Operational] - [ ] CHK067 - Are security requirements for health/metrics endpoints (authentication, authorization) specified or explicitly excluded? [Gap, Security, Contracts] - [ ] CHK068 - Are data privacy requirements for logged performance data (PII, sensitive info) specified? [Gap, Security] - [ ] CHK069 - Are platform support requirements (macOS, Linux, Windows) consistently specified? [Consistency, Spec §Assumptions line 184 vs Plan §Target Platform line 18] - [ ] CHK070 - Are Python version requirements (3.11+ for async features) validated against actual feature usage? [Traceability, Plan §Language/Version line 14] - [ ] CHK071 - Are PostgreSQL version requirements (14+ for pgvector) validated against actual feature usage? [Traceability, Plan §Primary Dependencies line 16] - [ ] CHK072 - Are k6 installation and configuration requirements specified? [Gap, Operational, Tasks T004] - [ ] CHK073 - Are CI/CD integration requirements for automated performance regression testing specified? [Gap, Spec SC-012] - [ ] CHK074 - Are backward compatibility requirements with pre-split baselines specified? [Gap, Migration Concern] --- ## Dependencies & Assumptions Validation **Purpose**: Validate that external dependencies and assumptions are documented and verifiable. - [ ] CHK075 - Is the assumption "pre-split baseline measurements exist" validated with fallback procedure? [Assumption, Spec §Assumptions line 178, Tasks T018] - [ ] CHK076 - Are Ollama service availability requirements for embedding generation specified? [Dependency, Plan §Primary Dependencies line 16] - [ ] CHK077 - Are PostgreSQL server configuration requirements (connection limits, timeouts) specified? [Dependency, Spec FR-015] - [ ] CHK078 - Is the dependency on tree-sitter for test fixture generation documented with version requirements? [Dependency, Research §7, Tasks T002] - [ ] CHK079 - Are pytest-benchmark compatibility requirements (version, JSON format) specified? [Dependency, Research §1] - [ ] CHK080 - Is the assumption "both servers running on same host" for cross-server tests validated? [Assumption, Spec §Assumptions line 182] - [ ] CHK081 - Are workflow-mcp implementation status assumptions (hypothetical vs real) clarified for Phase 06 scope? [Ambiguity, Plan line 121, Research §2 line 368] - [ ] CHK082 - Is the parent feature dependency (Phases 01-05 complete) verified with specific artifacts? [Dependency, Spec §Phase Dependencies line 202] - [ ] CHK083 - Are external podcast API requirements (if applicable) documented or excluded? [Clarification, Generic checklist example - may not apply] - [ ] CHK084 - Is the assumption "single instance testing" (no load balancing) consistently applied? [Consistency, Spec §Out of Scope line 191, §Assumptions line 185] --- ## Ambiguities & Conflicts Resolution **Purpose**: Identify and resolve ambiguities, conflicts, and underspecified areas in requirements. - [ ] CHK085 - Is the term "graceful degradation" consistently defined across spec (p95 < 2000ms under load) vs plan vs acceptance criteria? [Ambiguity, Spec User Story 3 line 68] - [ ] CHK086 - Is "operational/unresponsive/crashed" server state taxonomy consistently used across all failure scenarios? [Consistency, Spec §User Stories] - [ ] CHK087 - Is the conflict between "test coverage >95%" (SC-011) and "100% pass rate" (SC-011) resolved? [Conflict, Spec SC-011] - [ ] CHK088 - Is the term "entity reference" consistently defined (chunk_id, entity_id, or both) across integration requirements? [Ambiguity, Spec User Story 2] - [ ] CHK089 - Are contradictory requirements between spec §Out of Scope (line 197: no feature development) and tasks (T039-T042: implement endpoints) resolved? [Conflict, Spec vs Tasks] - [ ] CHK090 - Is the scope boundary between "validation phase" and "implementation phase" for health/metrics endpoints clarified? [Ambiguity, Phase 06 scope] - [ ] CHK091 - Is "Windows support deferred" consistently excluded across all platform requirements? [Consistency, Spec §Out of Scope line 196 vs §Assumptions line 184] - [ ] CHK092 - Are the metrics endpoint response time targets (<100ms) validated against constitutional <50ms health check requirement? [Consistency, Contracts README line 44 vs FR-011] - [ ] CHK093 - Is the relationship between "contract tests" (plan line 137) and "integration tests" (spec User Story 2) clarified? [Ambiguity, Terminology] - [ ] CHK094 - Is "Phase 06" terminology consistently used vs "feature 011" vs "performance validation"? [Consistency, Naming] --- ## Traceability & Documentation Quality **Purpose**: Validate that requirements are traceable, versioned, and maintain referential integrity. - [ ] CHK095 - Does each Functional Requirement (FR-001 through FR-020) have bidirectional traceability to User Stories? [Traceability] - [ ] CHK096 - Does each Success Criterion (SC-001 through SC-014) have bidirectional traceability to Functional Requirements? [Traceability] - [ ] CHK097 - Do all tasks in tasks.md (T001-T057) reference their source requirements from spec.md? [Traceability, Tasks] - [ ] CHK098 - Are all data model entities (5 Pydantic models) traceable to spec Key Entities section? [Traceability, Data Model vs Spec §Key Entities] - [ ] CHK099 - Are all API contracts (health, metrics) traceable to functional requirements? [Traceability, Contracts vs Spec FR-011, FR-012] - [ ] CHK100 - Are all quickstart scenarios traceable to user stories and acceptance criteria? [Traceability, Quickstart vs Spec] - [ ] CHK101 - Is a change history or version tracking mechanism established for requirements evolution? [Gap, Version Control] - [ ] CHK102 - Are all acronyms and domain terms defined in a glossary or inline? [Clarity, Terminology] - [ ] CHK103 - Are all referenced external documents (constitution.md, baseline JSON files) accessible and versioned? [Dependency, References] - [ ] CHK104 - Is the relationship between spec.md, plan.md, research.md, data-model.md, tasks.md documented? [Clarity, Workflow] --- ## Summary Statistics **Total Items**: 104 checklist items **Traceability Coverage**: 100% (all items reference spec sections, gaps, or quality dimensions) **Category Breakdown**: - Constitutional Traceability & Compliance: 8 items - Performance Metrics Clarity & Measurability: 12 items - Acceptance Criteria Quality & Objectivity: 10 items - Test Scenario Completeness & Coverage: 10 items - Failure & Recovery Requirements: 12 items - Edge Case & Boundary Conditions: 11 items - Non-Functional Requirements: 11 items - Dependencies & Assumptions: 10 items - Ambiguities & Conflicts: 10 items - Traceability & Documentation: 10 items **Risk Priority Items** (Critical for release decision): - CHK001: Constitutional traceability - CHK005: Hybrid regression logic clarity - CHK021: Acceptance criteria measurability - CHK028: Zero data loss verification - CHK041: Database failure mode coverage - CHK050: Rollback procedure specification - CHK064: Performance threshold constitutional alignment - CHK089: Scope conflict resolution (validation vs implementation) --- ## Usage Notes This checklist is designed for **release readiness assessment** before implementing Phase 06 validation tasks. It tests the **quality of the requirements themselves**, not the implementation. **How to use**: 1. Review each item sequentially 2. For [Gap] items: Document missing requirements in spec.md or plan.md 3. For [Ambiguity] items: Clarify vague terms with specific definitions 4. For [Conflict] items: Resolve contradictions and update affected documents 5. For [Consistency] items: Align requirements across all specification documents 6. For [Traceability] items: Establish explicit linkages between requirements 7. **Completion threshold**: Resolve all items marked as critical risk priority before implementation 8. **Acceptable state**: ≥90% items resolved; remaining items documented as accepted risks **Note**: This checklist focuses on constitutional compliance and performance metrics rigor as these are foundational to the feature's success. All performance targets must be measurable, traceable, and sufficient for objective production deployment decisions.