# Specification Quality Checklist: Multi-Context Support
**Feature ID**: 004-multi-context-support
**Date**: 2025-10-27
**Reviewer**: Auto-validation
---
## Validation Results
### 1. Problem Statement Clarity
| Criterion | Status | Notes |
|-----------|--------|-------|
| Problem is clearly defined | ✅ PASS | Single global knowledge base without organization clearly described |
| Impact on users is described | ✅ PASS | Cannot organize, search focused, or manage separate domains |
| Current limitations are specific | ✅ PASS | Specific limitations enumerated (no contexts, no scoped search, etc.) |
### 2. Solution Completeness
| Criterion | Status | Notes |
|-----------|--------|-------|
| Proposed solution addresses problem | ✅ PASS | Multi-context system directly solves organization problem |
| Solution approach is clear | ✅ PASS | Create contexts, add docs to contexts, search within/across contexts |
| Key capabilities are listed | ✅ PASS | 6 key capabilities enumerated |
### 3. Success Criteria Quality
| Criterion | Status | Notes |
|-----------|--------|-------|
| All criteria are measurable | ✅ PASS | Specific outcomes defined (create contexts, add to multiple, scoped search) |
| Criteria are technology-agnostic | ✅ PASS | Focuses on user capabilities, not implementation (ChromaDB mentioned as implementation detail) |
| Criteria are user-focused | ✅ PASS | All criteria describe user capabilities |
| Each criterion is verifiable | ✅ PASS | Can test each criterion (create, search, migrate, etc.) |
### 4. Scope Definition
| Criterion | Status | Notes |
|-----------|--------|-------|
| In-scope items are specific | ✅ PASS | 9 specific items listed |
| Out-of-scope items prevent scope creep | ✅ PASS | 7 items explicitly excluded (hierarchies, access control, etc.) |
| Boundaries are clear | ✅ PASS | Clear distinction between flat structure (in) and nested (out) |
### 5. User Scenarios Quality
| Criterion | Status | Notes |
|-----------|--------|-------|
| At least 2 scenarios provided | ✅ PASS | 5 comprehensive scenarios |
| Each scenario has clear steps | ✅ PASS | All scenarios have numbered step-by-step flows |
| Expected outcomes are defined | ✅ PASS | Each scenario has expected outcome section |
| Scenarios cover main use cases | ✅ PASS | Covers creation, multi-context docs, search, management, backward compat |
### 6. Requirements Testability
| Criterion | Status | Notes |
|-----------|--------|-------|
| Each FR has acceptance criteria | ✅ PASS | All 12 FRs have detailed acceptance criteria |
| Acceptance criteria are unambiguous | ✅ PASS | Clear, specific criteria (e.g., regex patterns, exact API signatures) |
| Requirements are verifiable | ✅ PASS | All can be tested (API calls, validation rules, behavior) |
| No vague language | ✅ PASS | Specific terminology used throughout |
### 7. Assumptions Documentation
| Criterion | Status | Notes |
|-----------|--------|-------|
| Key assumptions are listed | ✅ PASS | 10 assumptions documented |
| Technical constraints identified | ✅ PASS | ChromaDB collections, embedding model, naming constraints |
| Business assumptions noted | ✅ PASS | No access control, flat structure, default context |
### 8. Risk Analysis
| Criterion | Status | Notes |
|-----------|--------|-------|
| At least 3 risks identified | ✅ PASS | 5 risks documented |
| Each risk has likelihood & impact | ✅ PASS | All risks rated |
| Mitigations are specific | ✅ PASS | Concrete mitigation strategies for each risk |
| Critical risks are addressed | ✅ PASS | Migration data loss and backward compat addressed with strong mitigations |
### 9. Completeness
| Criterion | Status | Notes |
|-----------|--------|-------|
| All mandatory sections present | ✅ PASS | All required sections included |
| No placeholder text remains | ✅ PASS | All sections fully populated |
| Cross-references are valid | ✅ PASS | References to existing services and models are accurate |
### 10. Clarity & Readability
| Criterion | Status | Notes |
|-----------|--------|-------|
| Technical jargon is minimized | ✅ PASS | Business-focused language, technical details in appropriate sections |
| Sections flow logically | ✅ PASS | Natural progression from problem to solution to details |
| Examples are provided | ✅ PASS | Usage flow examples in appendix |
---
## Clarification Items
**Total Clarifications Needed**: 0
No clarifications needed - specification is complete and unambiguous.
---
## Overall Assessment
| Category | Result |
|----------|--------|
| **Completeness** | ✅ Complete |
| **Clarity** | ✅ Clear |
| **Testability** | ✅ Testable |
| **Readiness** | ✅ Ready for Planning |
---
## Recommendations
1. **Strong Specification**: This spec is comprehensive and well-structured
2. **Clear Technical Direction**: ChromaDB collection-per-context strategy is well-justified
3. **Good Risk Coverage**: Migration and backward compatibility risks properly identified and mitigated
4. **Next Steps**: Ready to proceed to `/speckit.plan` phase
---
## Validation Summary
- ✅ All quality criteria met
- ✅ No clarifications needed
- ✅ Ready for implementation planning
- ✅ Strong backward compatibility considerations
- ✅ Clear API design with examples
**Status**: **APPROVED** - Ready for `/speckit.plan`
