Hostaway MCP Server

# Specification Quality Checklist: Production-Ready Dashboard with Design System **Purpose**: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning **Created**: 2025-10-14 **Feature**: [spec.md](../spec.md) ## Content Quality - [X] No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs) - **Status**: PASS - Specification focuses on user outcomes, not implementation - **Evidence**: Mentions shadcn/ui and Tailwind in context of user request but success criteria are technology-agnostic - [X] Focused on user value and business needs - **Status**: PASS - All user stories describe business value and user outcomes - **Evidence**: "Property managers access a modern, professional dashboard", "view accurate API usage metrics" - [X] Written for non-technical stakeholders - **Status**: PASS - Language is accessible, avoids technical jargon in requirements - **Evidence**: Requirements use clear business language like "Dashboard MUST display all pages without visual errors" - [X] All mandatory sections completed - **Status**: PASS - User Scenarios, Requirements, Success Criteria all present and complete - **Evidence**: All template mandatory sections filled with substantive content ## Requirement Completeness - [X] No [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain - **Status**: PASS - Zero clarification markers in the spec - **Evidence**: Full text search reveals no [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers - [X] Requirements are testable and unambiguous - **Status**: PASS - Each requirement has clear pass/fail criteria - **Evidence**: FR-001 "MUST display all pages without visual errors", FR-002 "MUST display current month's API request count" - [X] Success criteria are measurable - **Status**: PASS - All success criteria include specific metrics - **Evidence**: SC-001 "100% of pages render correctly", SC-002 "within 2 seconds", SC-006 "95% task completion rate" - [X] Success criteria are technology-agnostic (no implementation details) - **Status**: PASS - Success criteria describe user-facing outcomes, not technical implementations - **Evidence**: SC-001 focuses on "visual errors", not "React component errors" or "CSS bugs" - [X] All acceptance scenarios are defined - **Status**: PASS - Each user story has 4 Given-When-Then scenarios - **Evidence**: User Story 1 has 4 scenarios, User Story 2 has 5 scenarios - [X] Edge cases are identified - **Status**: PASS - 6 edge cases listed covering zero states, errors, and extreme values - **Evidence**: "What happens when a user with no data views the usage page", "How does dashboard handle extremely long organization names" - [X] Scope is clearly bounded - **Status**: PASS - Out of Scope section explicitly excludes 9 features - **Evidence**: "Dark mode theme support", "Advanced data visualization", "Multi-language internationalization" all listed as out of scope - [X] Dependencies and assumptions identified - **Status**: PASS - 10 assumptions documented, dependencies section includes external, internal, and blocking deps - **Evidence**: Assumptions cover tech stack choices, Constraints section lists time/compatibility limits ## Feature Readiness - [X] All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria - **Status**: PASS - Functional requirements map to acceptance scenarios in user stories - **Evidence**: FR-002 (usage page metrics) → User Story 2, Scenario 1-2 - [X] User scenarios cover primary flows - **Status**: PASS - 4 user stories cover dashboard polish (P1), usage page fix (P1), component library (P2), navigation (P2) - **Evidence**: P1 stories are production blockers, P2 stories enhance developer experience - [X] Feature meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria - **Status**: PASS - 8 success criteria map directly to functional requirements and user stories - **Evidence**: SC-001 (pages render) → FR-001 (display pages), SC-002 (load time) → FR-004 (loading states) - [X] No implementation details leak into specification - **Status**: PASS - Notes section explains tech choices (shadcn/ui rationale) but spec body remains implementation-agnostic - **Evidence**: Requirements use "Dashboard MUST" not "React component MUST", "Users can navigate" not "Next.js router MUST" ## Overall Assessment **Status**: ✅ **READY FOR PLANNING** All checklist items pass validation. The specification is: - **Complete**: All mandatory sections filled with substantive content - **Clear**: Requirements are testable, unambiguous, and written for non-technical stakeholders - **Bounded**: Scope, dependencies, and assumptions clearly documented - **Measurable**: Success criteria include specific metrics (time, percentage, completion rate) - **User-focused**: All requirements describe user value, not technical implementation ## Notes ### Strengths 1. **Excellent prioritization**: P1 (production blockers) vs P2 (enhancements) clearly distinguished 2. **Comprehensive edge cases**: Covers zero states, errors, extreme values, accessibility 3. **Realistic assumptions**: Documents tech stack choices with rationale (shadcn/ui benefits) 4. **Risk mitigation**: Identifies technical/UX/deployment risks with specific mitigation strategies 5. **Clear constraints**: Time pressure (2-3 days), compatibility requirements, performance targets ### No Issues Found All validation items passed on first check. No spec updates required before proceeding to `/speckit.plan` or `/speckit.clarify`. ### Next Steps 1. Proceed to `/speckit.plan` to create implementation plan 2. Or use `/speckit.clarify` if additional questions arise during planning 3. Specification is production-ready and can guide development immediately