spec quality
Specification Quality Checklist: Multi-Package Support
Feature: TP-2432 Multi-Package Support for Restorative Care & End of Life
Spec Location: /TP-2432-Multi-Package-Support/spec.md
Checklist Date: 2025-12-07
Status: VALIDATED ✅
Content Quality
- No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs)
- Focused on user value and business needs
- Written for non-technical stakeholders
- All mandatory sections completed
- Problem statement clearly articulated
- Business scenarios documented with actual use cases
Requirement Completeness
- [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers are present but limited (3 questions, max allowed)
- Requirements are testable and unambiguous
- Success criteria are measurable
- Success criteria are technology-agnostic
- All acceptance scenarios are defined
- Edge cases identified:
- ✅ Cross-provider packages (Maria scenario)
- ✅ Concurrent packages (Jane scenario)
- ✅ Dormancy/reactivation (Robert scenario)
- ✅ Service duplication prevention
- Scope is clearly bounded (In/Out of scope sections)
- Dependencies identified:
- ✅ Services Australia API
- ✅ Care Coordinator Training
- ✅ Finance/Invoicing updates
Specification Quality Validation
Content Review
- Clarity: ✅ 5 detailed user stories with happy paths and alternatives
- Completeness: ✅ 12 functional requirements cover all aspects
- Business Alignment: ✅ Directly addresses Romy’s stated needs from meeting
- Testability: ✅ Each FR includes validation approach
- Data Model: ✅ Clear entity changes documented
Functional Requirements Coverage
- FR-1: Multiple Package Records → Testable (create 2, verify both accessible)
- FR-2: Package Type Classification → Testable (verify type affects behavior)
- FR-3: Care Partner Assignment → Testable (assign different partners, verify context)
- FR-4: Package Context Awareness → Testable (verify breadcrumbs/headers show context)
- FR-5: Care Plan Separation → Testable (create plans, verify independence)
- FR-6: Budget & Invoicing per Package → Testable (route bill, verify assignment)
- FR-7: Service Non-Duplication → Testable (attempt duplicate, verify block/exception)
- FR-8: Independent Termination → Testable (terminate one, verify other active)
- FR-9: EOL Dormancy → Testable (create EOL, verify dormancy state)
- FR-10: Cross-Provider Support → Testable (create packages with different context)
- FR-11: Tag Filtering → Testable (add tags, filter packages)
- FR-12: Unified Visibility → Testable (verify timeline/dashboard show all packages)
User Scenarios Coverage
- Primary path: Create restorative care package (US-1)
- Secondary path: Manage separate care plans (US-2)
- Critical path: Route services correctly (US-3)
- Alternative path: Terminate one package (US-4)
- Context path: Navigate multiple packages (US-5)
Success Criteria Validation
✅ All 10 criteria are:
- Measurable: Include specific metrics (time, percentage, accuracy)
- Technology-Agnostic: No mention of frameworks or databases
- User-Focused: Outcomes from business perspective
- Verifiable: Can test without implementation details
Examples:
- “Clients can have 2+ active packages without data loss” ✅
- “Service non-duplication enforced >99% of time” ✅
- “Bills routed correctly 95% of first attempt” ✅
Feature Readiness
-
Business problem clearly understood
- Current state: One package per client (enforced)
- Need: Support 2+ concurrent packages (restorative + ongoing, or EOL)
- Impact: Affects 4+ clients in pipeline, 20+ restorative care inquiries
-
User personas covered
- Care Coordinator (Romy, Jill) ✅
- Finance staff ✅
- Clinical specialists ✅
-
Acceptance criteria are precise
- Each story has clear AC and happy path
- Alternative scenarios documented
-
No implementation details in spec
- No mention of database design (just entity changes)
- No code examples in main spec
- No framework/technology decisions
-
Assumptions documented and reasonable
- 5 assumptions listed
- Each reflects confirmed meeting discussion
Outstanding Questions (3 Clarifications Required)
Q1: Care Circle Behavior [MEDIUM IMPACT]
Context: “Care circle probably being a better solution if it was all one statements” - Will (meeting)
What we need: Should care circle contacts be shared across both packages, managed separately, or hybrid?
Impact on: Care circle UI, data governance, contact notifications
Options:
| Option | Approach | Best For |
|---|---|---|
| A | Shared care circle (one contact list for both packages) | Simplicity, avoiding duplication |
| B | Separate per package (contacts added independently) | Clear isolation, package autonomy |
| C | Hybrid (some shared, some unique) | Flexibility, complex scenarios |
Recommendation: Start with A (Shared), refine if needed. Clinical contacts might need A, standard might prefer B.
Q2: Financial Statement Format [MEDIUM IMPACT]
Context: “Statements… probably being a better solution to see it all as one” - Will (meeting)
What we need: Should monthly statements be combined, separate, or user-selectable?
Impact on: Client reporting, finance reconciliation, audit trails
Options:
| Option | Format | Best For |
|---|---|---|
| A | Combined statement showing all packages with clear sections | Simplicity, overview |
| B | Separate statement per package (multiple documents) | Clear isolation, compliance |
| C | Toggle-able (user selects combined or per-package view) | Flexibility, choice |
Recommendation: Option C for flexibility. Combined view as default for staff, per-package for reporting.
Q3: Timeline & Event Visibility [MEDIUM IMPACT]
Context: “Almost need to pull out timeline from a package timeline to a multi select timeline” - Will (meeting)
What we need: Should timeline show events from all packages or only active package?
Impact on: User context awareness, information density, navigation complexity
Options:
| Option | Behavior | Best For |
|---|---|---|
| A | All events across all packages (with package labels) | Complete visibility, research |
| B | Active package only (simple, focused) | Focus, reduced complexity |
| C | Toggle between all/active (user control) | Flexibility, both use cases |
Recommendation: Option C. Toggle with “All Packages” as advanced mode.
Clarification Resolution Path
To move forward:
- Stakeholder Input Needed From: Will (architect), Romy (operations), Anthony (data)
- Decision Format:
- Reply with option letter (A/B/C)
- Or provide custom answer
- Timeline: No blockers, can proceed with current spec while awaiting clarifications
- Next Steps After Clarifications:
- Run
/trilogy.clarify-designfor UI mockups - Run
/speckit.planfor technical implementation plan - Begin interim solution work (tags, workflow)
- Run
Specification Readiness Summary
| Aspect | Status | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Problem Statement | ✅ Complete | 3 detailed scenarios from meeting |
| User Stories | ✅ Complete | 5 stories with AC and paths |
| Functional Requirements | ✅ Complete | 12 FRs covering all aspects |
| Data Model | ✅ Complete | Clear entity changes documented |
| Success Criteria | ✅ Complete | 10 measurable, tech-agnostic criteria |
| Assumptions | ✅ Complete | 6 key assumptions listed |
| Scope Definition | ✅ Complete | Clear in/out of scope boundaries |
| Open Questions | ⏳ Clarifications Pending | 3 design decisions (non-blocking) |
| Implementation Strategy | ✅ Included | Approach 1 (Multiple Packages) recommended |
| Interim Solution | ✅ Included | Tag-based approach for immediate needs |
Spec Status: 🟢 READY FOR DESIGN & PLANNING
Can proceed to:
/trilogy.clarify-design- UI/UX details for package selector, care partner UI, timeline toggle/speckit.plan- Technical implementation plan with phase breakdown- Interim solution work - Tags, note types, supplier setup (parallel track)
Sign-Off
| Role | Sign-Off | Date | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Product | [Pending] | — | Awaiting clarification answers |
| Architecture | [Pending] | — | Plan will validate technical feasibility |
| Operations | [Pending] | — | Waiting for design/plan review |
Version History
| Version | Date | Author | Changes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.0 | 2025-12-07 | Claude | Initial spec based on meeting transcript |