# Specification Quality Checklist: ggen v5.0.0 Release

**Purpose**: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning
**Created**: 2025-12-17
**Feature**: [spec.md](../spec.md)

## 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

## Requirement Completeness

- [x] No [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain
- [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

## 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 Results

### Content Quality Assessment

✅ **PASS** - Specification maintains proper abstraction level:
- Uses "system MUST" instead of Rust-specific implementations
- Focuses on RDF ontologies, SPARQL queries, and Tera templates (domain concepts, not code)
- Success criteria describe user-observable outcomes (completion times, error quality) without mentioning Rust types or functions

✅ **PASS** - User value clearly articulated:
- User Story 1 (P1): Addresses command fragmentation pain point (9 modules → 1 command)
- User Story 2 (P1): Enables complete ontology-to-code pipeline
- User Story 3 (P2): Reduces upgrade friction
- User Story 4 (P2): Reduces debugging time by 80%
- User Story 5 (P3): Optimizes large project workflows

✅ **PASS** - Non-technical stakeholder comprehension:
- Business value clear: "simplifying workflow from 5-10 commands to 1 command"
- Measurable outcomes: "completes in under 5 seconds", "95% of failures provide actionable messages"
- No Rust/Cargo/crate terminology in requirements

✅ **PASS** - All mandatory sections completed:
- User Scenarios & Testing: 5 prioritized stories with acceptance scenarios
- Requirements: 20 functional requirements, 7 key entities
- Success Criteria: 15 measurable outcomes
- Edge Cases: 7 boundary conditions identified

### Requirement Completeness Assessment

✅ **PASS** - Zero [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers:
- All requirements use informed defaults
- Assumptions documented implicitly (e.g., Turtle/RDF-XML/N-Triples formats, SPARQL 1.1, Tera template syntax)

✅ **PASS** - Requirements are testable and unambiguous:
- FR-001: Testable via command enumeration comparison (v4: 47 verbs, v5: 1 command)
- FR-002: Testable via mode flag validation (`--mode full|incremental|verify`)
- FR-010: Testable via exit code assertions (0=success, 1-4=specific failures)
- Each FR includes specific behavior (MUST parse, MUST execute, MUST preserve)

✅ **PASS** - Success criteria are measurable:
- SC-002: "1,000 RDF triples completes in under 5 seconds" (quantitative, time-bound)
- SC-003: "single triple modification completes in under 3 seconds (90% faster)" (quantitative, comparative)
- SC-004: "95% of sync failures provide actionable error messages" (quantitative, percentage)
- SC-009: "100% of incremental sync operations without corruption" (quantitative, absolute)

✅ **PASS** - Success criteria are technology-agnostic:
- No mention of Rust, Cargo, `oxigraph`, `tera` crate APIs
- Uses domain language: "sync operations", "ontologies", "SPARQL queries", "templates"
- Focuses on user experience: "users can complete", "pipeline executes", "system reports"

✅ **PASS** - All acceptance scenarios defined:
- User Story 1: 5 Given-When-Then scenarios (valid ontology, incremental update, workspace sync, CI/CD, error reporting)
- User Story 2: 5 scenarios covering pipeline stages
- User Story 3: 4 scenarios for migration paths
- User Story 4: 5 scenarios for error handling
- User Story 5: 5 scenarios for performance optimization
- Total: 24 testable acceptance scenarios

✅ **PASS** - Edge cases identified:
- File locking, circular dependencies, invalid syntax output, concurrent operations, external graphs, platform-specific paths, disk space exhaustion
- Each edge case includes expected system behavior

✅ **PASS** - Scope clearly bounded:
- IN SCOPE: `ggen sync` command, three modes, SPARQL pipeline, migration guide
- OUT OF SCOPE (implicit): v4 modules remain deprecated but functional, no new RDF formats beyond Turtle/RDF-XML/N-Triples
- Clear delineation between P1 (must-have), P2 (should-have), P3 (nice-to-have)

✅ **PASS** - Dependencies and assumptions identified:
- Dependency: v4.0.0 baseline (47 verbs, clap-noun-verb architecture)
- Assumption: SPARQL 1.1 compliance (CONSTRUCT and SELECT queries)
- Assumption: Tera template engine for code generation
- Assumption: `ggen.toml` configuration schema (documented in FR-011, FR-016)
- Assumption: Rust workspace structure (multiple crates)

### Feature Readiness Assessment

✅ **PASS** - All functional requirements mapped to acceptance criteria:
- FR-001 (unified command) → User Story 1, Scenario 1
- FR-002 (three modes) → User Story 1, Scenario 2-4
- FR-004-006 (SPARQL pipeline) → User Story 2, Scenarios 1-4
- FR-007 (preserve manual code) → User Story 5, Scenario 2
- FR-009 (error reporting) → User Story 4, Scenarios 1-5
- FR-017 (migration guide) → User Story 3, Scenarios 1-4

✅ **PASS** - User scenarios cover primary flows:
- Primary flow 1 (P1): Single-file sync (User Story 1, Scenario 1)
- Primary flow 2 (P1): Workspace sync (User Story 1, Scenario 3)
- Primary flow 3 (P1): Pipeline execution (User Story 2, Scenarios 1-4)
- Secondary flow (P2): Error handling (User Story 4)
- Optimization flow (P3): Incremental sync (User Story 5)

✅ **PASS** - Feature meets measurable outcomes:
- SC-001: Migration guide delivery (User Story 3)
- SC-002-003: Performance targets (User Story 5)
- SC-004: Error message quality (User Story 4)
- SC-008: Code generation correctness (User Story 1-2)
- SC-012: Documentation clarity (User Story 3)

✅ **PASS** - No implementation details leak:
- Specification uses domain language (RDF, SPARQL, Tera) without implementation specifics
- No mention of Rust modules, traits, structs, or function signatures
- No mention of specific crates like `oxigraph`, `tera`, `clap`
- Success criteria describe user outcomes, not code metrics

## Notes

- **Validation passed with zero defects** - Specification is ready for `/speckit.clarify` or `/speckit.plan`
- **Strengths**:
  - Comprehensive edge case coverage (7 boundary conditions)
  - Clear prioritization (P1: core, P2: critical for adoption, P3: optimization)
  - Technology-agnostic success criteria enable implementation flexibility
  - 24 acceptance scenarios provide extensive testability
- **Recommendations for planning phase**:
  - Break FR-004-006 (SPARQL pipeline) into discrete components for incremental implementation
  - Prioritize FR-001-002 (unified command + modes) as foundation
  - Consider FR-017 (migration guide) as documentation task parallel to implementation
