Codebase MCP Server

# Specification Quality Checklist: Background Indexing for Large Repositories **Purpose**: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning **Created**: 2025-10-17 **Last Updated**: 2025-10-17 (Post-Revision Validation) **Feature**: [spec.md](../spec.md) ## Revision History **Initial Draft** (2025-10-17 10:00): First version had 8 critical compliance violations **Revision 1** (2025-10-17 11:30): Parallel subagent revision addressed all critical issues **Final Validation** (2025-10-17 12:00): **✅ PASS - All criteria met** --- ## 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 **Validation Notes**: - ✅ Zero mentions of PostgreSQL, threads, schemas, enums, JSONB, Python, FastMCP, or SQLAlchemy - ✅ User Stories describe user experience ("user needs to index", "user can check status") not system behavior - ✅ Functional Requirements focus on WHAT (capabilities) not HOW (implementation) - ✅ All 10 mandatory sections present: User Scenarios, Requirements, Key Entities, Success Criteria, Non-Goals, Clarifications, Assumptions, Review Checklist, Edge Cases, Feature Metadata --- ## Requirement Completeness - [x] No [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain (or max 3 with valid reason) - [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 **Validation Notes**: - ✅ Exactly 3 [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers present (max allowed): 1. FR-001: MCP client timeout limit validation (architecturally significant) 2. FR-001: Threshold trigger logic - files vs lines vs duration (affects core design) 3. FR-011: Maximum concurrent operations limit (resource management strategy) - ✅ All 15 Functional Requirements include Acceptance Criteria and trace to User Stories - ✅ Success Criteria use specific metrics (1 second, 5 seconds, 100ms, <1%, <2%, 95%) - ✅ Edge Cases (6 scenarios) describe user-facing behavior without technical implementation - ✅ Non-Goals section (15 items) clearly bounds scope to prevent feature creep - ✅ Assumptions section (A-001 through A-008) documents reasonable defaults, A-002 contradiction resolved --- ## 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 Notes**: - ✅ 4 prioritized user stories (P1, P2, P3, P2) with independent testability - ✅ Each user story includes "Why this priority" justification and "Independent Test" description - ✅ 26 Given-When-Then acceptance scenarios across all user stories - ✅ Key Entities transformed to business entities with Purpose, Lifecycle, Attributes, Invariants, Relationships - ✅ Success Criteria align with user stories: SC-001→US1, SC-005→US2, SC-004→US3, SC-003→US4 --- ## Constitutional Compliance - [x] Aligns with **Principle I: Simplicity Over Features** - Background jobs solve timeout problem only, Non-Goals prevents scope creep - [x] Aligns with **Principle II: Local-First Architecture** - No cloud dependencies, local job tracking (FR-003) - [x] Aligns with **Principle III: Protocol Compliance** - Job status via MCP tools, structured logging (FR-014) - [x] Aligns with **Principle IV: Performance Guarantees** - Maintains 60s/10K lines target during concurrent jobs (SC-006) - [x] Aligns with **Principle V: Production Quality Standards** - Error handling (FR-014), graceful failure (SC-007), clear messages - [x] Aligns with **Principle VI: Specification-First Development** - Acceptance criteria before implementation - [x] Aligns with **Principle VII: Test-Driven Development** - Test scenarios in User Stories - [x] Respects Technical Constraints - Works with existing async architecture, PostgreSQL database (but not specified in spec) **Validation Notes**: - ✅ Review Checklist section (lines 266-301) includes Constitutional Compliance subsection with 9 principle checks - ✅ Non-Goals explicitly references constitutional principles (e.g., "Single-user local operation - inherited from Local-First Architecture principle") - ✅ Success Criteria SC-006 references "constitutional performance targets" maintaining alignment - ✅ No violations detected during final validation --- ## Structural Compliance Report | Section | Required | Present | Quality | Line Range | |---------|----------|---------|---------|------------| | Feature Metadata | ✅ | ✅ | Excellent | 1-6 | | Original User Description | ✅ | ✅ | Excellent | 6 | | User Scenarios & Testing | ✅ | ✅ | Excellent | 8-92 | | Functional Requirements | ✅ | ✅ | Excellent | 93-155 | | Success Criteria | ✅ | ✅ | Excellent | 210-221 | | Key Entities | ⚠️ | ✅ | Excellent | 157-208 | | Edge Cases | ✅ | ✅ | Excellent | 79-91 | | Review Checklist | ✅ | ✅ | Excellent | 266-301 | | Clarifications | ✅ | ✅ | Excellent | 243-253 | | Non-Goals | ✅ | ✅ | Excellent | 223-241 | | Assumptions | Optional | ✅ | Excellent | 255-265 | **Score**: 10/10 sections compliant (100%) - **Up from 7/10 (70%) before revision** --- ## Validation Summary **Status**: ✅ **PASSED - Ready for `/speckit.clarify`** **Overall Assessment**: The specification has been successfully revised using parallel subagents to address all 8 critical compliance violations identified in the initial review. The spec now demonstrates exemplary adherence to spec-kit methodology with complete separation of WHAT/WHY (specification) from HOW (implementation). **Key Improvements**: 1. **Implementation Details Eliminated**: All technology references (PostgreSQL, threads, schemas) replaced with user-centric language 2. **Mandatory Sections Added**: Non-Goals, Clarifications, and Review Checklist sections now present 3. **Business Entities Transformed**: Key Entities section describes business concepts with lifecycle and invariants, not database schema 4. **User-Centric Stories**: User Stories focus on user experience and outcomes, not system internals 5. **Technology-Agnostic Requirements**: All 15 FRs describe capabilities without specifying implementation approach 6. **Strategic Clarifications**: 3 [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers address high-impact architectural decisions 7. **Assumption Clarity**: A-002 contradiction resolved, threshold logic clearly defined 8. **Edge Case Quality**: All 6 edge cases describe observable user behavior without technical implementation **Compliance Metrics**: - Content Quality: 4/4 ✅ - Requirement Completeness: 8/8 ✅ - Feature Readiness: 4/4 ✅ - Constitutional Compliance: 8/8 ✅ - Structural Compliance: 10/10 sections (100%) **Estimated Revision Time**: 2.5 hours (5 parallel subagents + integration + validation) **Readiness**: The specification is production-ready for the clarification phase. The 3 [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers are strategically placed to resolve genuine ambiguities that affect core architectural decisions: - Q1: MCP client timeout empirical validation - Q2: Background indexing threshold logic (files/lines/duration) - Q3: Concurrent operations resource limits **Recommended Next Step**: `/speckit.clarify` to resolve marked ambiguities through structured questioning, then proceed to `/speckit.plan` for implementation planning. --- **Checklist Version**: 2.0 **Approved By**: Claude Code Specification Validation Agent **Approval Date**: 2025-10-17