# Specification Quality Checklist: Matrix-Slack Bridge Integration

**Purpose**: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning
**Created**: 2025-10-22
**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

**Status**: ✅ ALL CHECKS PASSED

### Detailed Review

#### Content Quality
- ✅ Specification avoids mentioning specific technologies (NixOS, PostgreSQL mentioned only as dependencies, not implementation)
- ✅ Focus remains on user outcomes: message delivery, reliability, configuration
- ✅ Language accessible to non-technical stakeholders (business-focused success criteria)
- ✅ All mandatory sections present: User Scenarios, Requirements, Success Criteria

#### Requirement Completeness
- ✅ Zero [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers (all decisions made based on context)
- ✅ All 15 functional requirements are testable (can verify message relay, timing, auth, etc.)
- ✅ Success criteria measurable with specific metrics (5 second delivery, 99% uptime, etc.)
- ✅ Success criteria technology-agnostic (focused on user experience, not tech stack)
- ✅ 16 acceptance scenarios across 4 user stories provide comprehensive coverage
- ✅ 7 edge cases identified with expected behaviors
- ✅ Scope explicitly defines what's in/out with rationale
- ✅ Dependencies documented across technical, external, and process categories

#### Feature Readiness
- ✅ FR-001 through FR-015 map to user stories and acceptance criteria
- ✅ Four prioritized user stories (P1-P3) cover core flows: Slack→Matrix, Matrix→Slack, reliability, configuration
- ✅ Eight success criteria directly measurable without implementation knowledge
- ✅ No technical leakage: "Socket Mode" and "sops-nix" appropriately mentioned as requirements, not implementation details

### Assumptions Validated

The specification makes informed assumptions about:
- Message volume (< 1000/day per channel) - reasonable for small team
- Channel count (< 10 initially) - appropriate for MVP
- Network reliability (>99%) - standard expectation
- No historical import needed - MVP can start fresh
- Manual testing sufficient - matches "build it right" philosophy

These assumptions are explicitly documented in the Assumptions section.

### Scope Clarity

In-scope and out-of-scope items clearly delineated:
- Core bidirectional messaging: IN SCOPE
- Advanced features (threads, reactions, editing): OUT OF SCOPE (explicitly deferred)
- Single workspace focus: IN SCOPE
- Multi-workspace: OUT OF SCOPE

This provides clear boundaries for implementation.

## Notes

- Specification is complete and ready for planning phase
- No clarifications needed from user (all decisions made with reasonable defaults)
- Feature aligns with Platform Vision Milestone 1
- Dependencies clearly identified for implementation planning
- Edge cases provide guidance for error handling design

## Recommendation

**PROCEED TO PLANNING**: Specification meets all quality criteria and is ready for `/speckit.plan`.

The spec successfully balances:
- Completeness (all required information present)
- Clarity (unambiguous requirements)
- Feasibility (realistic scope for MVP)
- Flexibility (identified future enhancements)