Skip to content
Trilogy Care Logo TC Docs

spec quality

Specification Quality Checklist: Funding Stream Balance in Package Sidebar

Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning Created: 2025-12-09 Feature: spec.md

Content Quality

  • No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs)

    • Spec focuses on user value (funding visibility) rather than technical HOW
    • All references to components/architecture are for context only, not implementation guidance

  • Focused on user value and business needs

    • Addresses care coordinator pain point: fragmented workflows, missing funding context
    • Aligns with BUR initiative goal of improving funding visibility

  • Written for non-technical stakeholders

    • User stories in first person, relatable scenarios
    • Functional requirements describe what system does, not how it’s built
    • No mentions of code, APIs, or database structure (except in Data & Integration section for context)

  • All mandatory sections completed

    • Overview, Problem Statement, User Stories, Functional Requirements, Success Criteria, Assumptions, Edge Cases, Dependencies, Next Steps

Requirement Completeness

  • No [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain

    • One minor question in edge case about “current quarter” interpretation
    • This is a reasonable edge case with suggested mitigation (recommend previous/active)
    • Does not block implementation; can be decided during planning phase

  • Requirements are testable and unambiguous

    • FR1: “Section displays below recipient information with colored badges” - testable
    • FR2: “Show only active budget plan” - testable with defined active plan criteria
    • FR3: “Visible on all package tabs” - testable by navigating tabs
    • FR4: “Updates without page refresh” - testable by modifying budget and checking
    • All user stories have clear acceptance criteria

  • Success criteria are measurable

    • “Visible on every package tab without navigation”
    • “Amounts match Service Plan view”
    • “Updates automatically when budget changes”
    • “Sidebar loads with standard package view latency”
    • “Identify funding context within 2 seconds”

  • Success criteria are technology-agnostic

    • No mentions of specific frameworks, databases, or APIs
    • Criteria describe outcomes from user perspective
    • Verifiable through user testing and functional testing

  • All acceptance scenarios are defined

    • User Story 1: Happy Path (checking funding during service planning)
    • User Story 1: Alternative (single funding stream)
    • User Story 1: Alternative (no funding)
    • User Story 2: Happy Path (monitoring changes after updates)
    • User Story 3: Happy Path (empty state behavior)

  • Edge cases are identified

    • No budget plan
    • Multiple budget plans in different quarters
    • Single funding stream
    • Negative/zero balance
    • Large currency amounts
    • Long funding stream names

  • Scope is clearly bounded

    • Explicitly states out of scope: detailed analytics, modification, history, alerts, multiple plan comparison
    • Feature is read-only display in sidebar
    • No changes to budget creation or Service Plan view

  • Dependencies and assumptions identified

    • Dependencies: Existing components (FundingStreamData, FundingStreamBadge.vue, PackageViewData)
    • Assumptions: Single active plan per period, data available, package metadata distribution
    • Clear what is required vs. what could be future work

Feature Readiness

  • All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria

    • Each FR (FR1-FR6) has “Success Criterion” statement
    • Requirements describe observable behaviors

  • User scenarios cover primary flows

    • Flow 1: Initial visibility check (how coordinators first use feature)
    • Flow 2: Dynamic updates (how feature integrates with budget modifications)
    • Flow 3: New package without budget (handles most common edge case)

  • Feature meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria

    • Success Criteria #1-7 aligned with Functional Requirements
    • No disconnects between what requirements deliver and what success measures

  • No implementation details leak into specification

    • Data & Integration section provides context but not implementation guidance
    • No code patterns, file paths, or database queries
    • Could hand spec to product/design team without revealing technical approach

Clarifications Integrated (Session 2025-12-09)

✅ All 6 clarifications from user input integrated into spec:

  1. ✅ Quarter Determination → Clarified to follow Service Plan logic (FR2a)
  2. ✅ Tooltip Content → Full funding stream names in tooltips (FR1)
  3. ✅ Active Plan Only → Only single active plan displayed (FR2)
  4. ✅ Empty State → Beautiful “No Funding Streams” message (FR6)
  5. ✅ Badge Layout → Vertical stacking, all streams, no limit (FR1)
  6. ✅ Redundant Display → Intentional, documented for Service Plan tab (FR2)

No Outstanding Issues

  • All major decision points resolved
  • Quarter determination logic sourced from existing Service Plan implementation
  • Empty state behavior defined with specific message
  • Tooltip requirements explicit
  • Layout requirements (vertical stacking) specified

Areas Ready for Next Phase

  • ✅ User stories sufficient for design mockups (have clear acceptance criteria)
  • ✅ Functional requirements ready for technical planning (testable, unambiguous, all decisions made)
  • ✅ Edge cases fully documented with resolutions for QA test case creation
  • ✅ Scope bounded; all key decisions made
  • ✅ Quarter determination logic grounded in existing codebase patterns
  • ✅ Empty state presentation defined with specific styling guidance needed

Checklist Status: ✅ READY FOR DESIGN & PLANNING

Approval: This specification is complete, clarified, and ready to proceed to:

  1. /trilogy.clarify-design - Optional: Nail down exact visual treatment (tooltip styling, empty state design, badge spacing details)
  2. /trilogy.mockup - Generate UI mockups showing version B layout with all scenarios (no funding, single stream, multiple streams)
  3. /speckit.plan - Create technical implementation plan

No blocking issues identified. All clarifications resolved. Specification provides sufficient detail for design, technical planning, and acceptance testing.