2026-09-07 12:55:41 +05:30
|
|
|
# Specification Quality Checklist: Agent Ticket Queue
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Purpose**: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning
|
|
|
|
|
**Created**: 2026-09-07
|
|
|
|
|
**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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Notes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- This feature was not on the original 11-phase roadmap, and wasn't anticipated by 010's own
|
|
|
|
|
scope either — it surfaced while beginning supporthub-web's 001-agent-admin-ui planning: its
|
|
|
|
|
User Story 1 (agent dashboard) needs to list "tickets currently assigned to me," and no route,
|
|
|
|
|
repository method, or even a documented gap anywhere in the ticketing or orchestration modules
|
|
|
|
|
answers that question. Numbered 011 in supporthub-api's own sequence for the same reason 010
|
|
|
|
|
was — a genuine, immediately-needed backend prerequisite discovered while building the
|
|
|
|
|
consuming feature, not deferred hardening.
|
|
|
|
|
- User Story 1 (linking `Agent.userId`) is itself a "finish the scaffold's own intended design"
|
|
|
|
|
case, same pattern as 010: the field was added in 010-identity-auth specifically for this
|
|
|
|
|
purpose ("schema capability only, no workflow sets it yet") and simply never got its own
|
|
|
|
|
endpoint until now.
|
|
|
|
|
- Deliberately narrow: this is not a general ticket search/list endpoint (Assumptions) — only
|
|
|
|
|
the one query supporthub-web's agent dashboard actually needs, to avoid speculative scope
|
|
|
|
|
beyond what 001-agent-admin-ui's own spec calls for.
|
|
|
|
|
- All items pass; no revision iterations were needed.
|
2026-09-07 13:19:13 +05:30
|
|
|
- **Implementation-time finding**: research.md's plan to add a dedicated
|
|
|
|
|
`AgentsService.requireAgentForUser` guard (rather than inlining the lookup in the ticketing
|
|
|
|
|
controller) turned out to matter for testability, not just style — it let T007's unit test
|
|
|
|
|
exercise the "no linked agent" rejection with a fake repository, with no real database
|
|
|
|
|
involved, exactly the kind of isolated unit coverage tasks.md asked for. Worth defaulting to
|
|
|
|
|
this shape (a small service method over inline controller logic) whenever a cross-module
|
|
|
|
|
guard needs its own unit test.
|
|
|
|
|
- No other deviations from plan.md — the two-routes-sharing-one-service-method design, the
|
|
|
|
|
proactive existence/role/duplicate-link checks, and the new composite index all worked exactly
|
|
|
|
|
as researched, and the full regression suite (unit + integration) stayed clean throughout.
|
